A Multi-Species Framework Approach 

for the Columbia River Basin 

Integrating Fish, Wildlife, and Ecological Functions

Version: February 2002
AUTHORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Bruce G. Marcot, Ph.D., Research Wildlife Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, 1221 S.W. Yamhill St., Portland, OR 97208-3890, 

bmarcot@fs.fed.us

Willis E. McConnaha, M.S., Fisheries Biologist, Northwest Power Planning Council,

851 SW 6th Ave. Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204. cmcconnaha@nwppc.org

Paul H. Whitney, Ph.D., Senior Ecologist, Beak Consultants Inc., 317 S.W.

Alder St., Portland, OR 97204-3820, pwhitney@beak.com

Thomas A. O’Neil, M.S., Wildlife Ecologist, Northwest Habitat Institute, P.O. Box 855, 

Corvallis, OR 97339-0855, habitat@nwhi.org

Peter J. Paquet, Ph.D., Manager, Wildlife & Resident Fish, Northwest Power Planning 

Council, 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland OR 97204, ppaquet@nwppc.org

Lars E. Mobrand, Ph.D., Biometrician, Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., PO Box 724,

Vashon, WA 98070, lars@mobrand.com

Gregory R. Blair, M.S., Fisheries Biologist, Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., PO

Box 724, Vashon, WA 98070, gblair@mobrand.com

Lawrence C. Lestelle, M.S., Fisheries Biologist, Mobrand Biometrics, Inc.,

PO Box 724, Vashon, WA 98070, lestelle@tscnet.com

Kevin M. Malone, M.S., Biologist, Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., PO Box 724,

Vashon, WA 98070, kmalone@mobrand.com

Technical Editor:

Kristina I. Jenkins, Editor/Production Manager, Northwest Power Planning

Council, 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97204 - kjenkins@nwppc.org

Willis E. McConnaha and Peter J. Paquet wrote the sections on fish methods and results. 

Lars E. Mobrand, Gregory R. Blair, Lawrence C. Lestelle, and Kevin M. Malone conducted 

and supported the fish modeling and contributed to the fish text. Bruce G. Marcot, Paul H. 

Whitney, Thomas A. O’Neil, and Peter J. Paquet wrote the sections on wildlife and integrated 

fish-wildlife methods and results, and conducted the modeling of wildlife and fish-wildlife 

interactions. Bruce G. Marcot did overall editing of content and wrote the introduction and 

summary sections. Kristina I. Jenkins compiled the manuscript, provided technical edits, 

and created the PDF file version.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the following people for their technical and/or administrative contributions: 

Charley Barrett, Steve Berwick, David Johnson, Chris Kiilsgaard, Rick Paquette, Drew 

Parkin, Roy Sampsel, and Lance Vail. We also thank members of the Ecological Working 

Group, including Peter Bisson, Chris Frissell, William Liss, Jim Lichatowich, and Cindy 

Williams; and the members of the Framework Steering Committee, including Tom Cooney, 

Albert Georgi, and Phil Rogers. Thanks to Stephen Sasser and Eric Schrepel for their help 

with editing and production.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Summary

Overview

Results of Fish Assessments

Results of Wildlife Assessments

Results of Fish-Wildlife Assessments

Findings Related to Scientific Uncertainty and Potential Management Risk

Recommendations on a Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program

II. Introduction

History and Background

Objectives

Toward Integrated Assessment and Management

Sections of this Report

III. Methods

Fish Species

Introduction

Development of Current Potential and Historic Potential Landscapes

Analysis Method

Uncertainty and World View Assumptions

Wildlife Species

Introduction

Overview of Information Used

Major Assumptions

Validation Steps

Ecological Integration
Integrating Assessments of Fish and Wildlife Populations and Ecological 

Functions

Influence of Habitats on Populations and Functions

Influence of Populations on Themselves

Influence of Populations on Other Populations

Influence of Populations on Habitats and KECs 

Influence of Planning Alternatives and Management Activities on 

Habitats

Changes Through Space and Time

Addressing Uncertainty

Uncertainty and Use of a Scientific Approach

Uncertainty as Handled in This Report

Worldviews

IV. Results and Discussion

Fish

Framework

EDT Model Results Validation

Historic Potential

Current Potential

Alternative 2

Alternative 5

Alternative 6

Wildlife

Habitat Performance

Biological Performance

Fish and Wildlife Integration

Integrated Assessments of Fish and Wildlife Populations and Ecological 

Functions

Influence of Habitats on Populations and Functions

Influence of Populations on Themselves

Influence of Populations on Other Populations
Influence of Populations on Habitats and KECs

Implications of Findings

V. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

Conceptual Overview with Example

Three Levels of Monitoring

Role of Independent Science Advisory Board

Discussion and Elaboration on the Use of Biological Objectives

VI. References

VII. Glossary

VII. Appendices

Appendix A - EDT Method (.pdf)

Appendix B - Rules for Translating

B-1 Guidelines to Biorules (.pdf)

B-2 Rules for Translating Level 2 Environmental Attribute Values To Level 3 

Biometrics for Chinook Salmon (.pdf)

B-3 Association Matrix (.pdf)

B-4 Benchmarks (.pdf)

B-5 References (.pdf)

Appendix C - Subyear (.pdf)

Appendix D - Flow Assumptions

D-1a Flow Assumptions Part 1a (.pdf)

D-1b Flow Assumptions Part 1b (.pdf)

D-2 Flow Assumptions Part 2 (.pdf)

Appendix E - Dam Survival Assumptions

E-1 Subyearling - Hydro, Tables 1-5 (.pdf)
E-2 Yearling - Hydro, Tables 6-10 (.pdf)

Appendix F - Habitat Assessment Methods

F-1 Black Bear Habitat Assessment Method Summary (.pdf)

F-2 Bald Eagle Habitat Assessment Method Summary (.pdf)

F-3 American Beaver Habitat Assessment Method Summary (.pdf)

Appendix G - Library (.pdf)

Appendix H - Strategies Applied in Alternatives (.pdf)

Appendix I - Scientific Principles (.pdf)

Appendix J - Annotated Bibliography List (.pdf)

Appendix K - Functional Analysis

K-1 Methods Used to Analyze KEFs and Functional Redundancy of Wildlife 

Species (.pdf)

K-2 Figure Captions (.pdf)

K-Figure 1 Wildlife Habitat Types Historic and Current (.pdf)

K-Figure 2 Change, Historic to Current by Wildlife Habitat (.pdf)

K-Figure 3 Change, Historic to Current (.pdf)

K-Figure 4a Change in Functional Redundancy, part 1 (.pdf)

K-Figure 4b Change in Functional Redundancy, part 2 (.pdf)

K-Figure 5 Upper Grande Ronde HUC, Blue Mountains (.pdf)

K-Figure 6 Percent Change in Functional Redundancy for Physically Affects 

(Improves) Soil Structure, Aeration (Typically by Digging), Historic to Current 

(.pdf)

K-Table 1 Acres of historic and current wildlife habitat in the example 

subwatershed (.pdf)

K-Table 2 Number of wildlife species (functional redundancy) by categories of 

key ecological functions (KEFs), found in wildlife habitats occurring within the 

example subwatershed (.pdf)

Appendix L - Screening Procedure for Estimating the Wildlife-Habitat Types 

for each Alternative 

VII. Amendments
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.1

SUMMARY

The summary is organized as follows:

Overview

Results of Fish Assessments

Results of Wildlife Assessments

Results of Integrated Fish-Wildlife Assessments

Findings Related to Scientific Uncertainty and Potential Management 

Risk

Recommendations on a Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

Program

Overview

Through the Multi-Species Framework approach, we have developed a 

joint fish and wildlife scientific assessment and management framework 

for the entire Columbia River Basin. This Framework encourages fish and 

wildlife biologists to share common foundations for habitat databases, 

population models, and a technical lexicon. This commonality will allow 

the region to forecast the effects of proposed actions would have on both 

fish (resident and anadromous) and wildlife populations and their 

habitats, and to guide integrated assessments of aquatic and terrestrial 

ecosytems.

This Multi-Species Framework is designed to help the region develop a 

collective vision and approach for fish and wildlife recovery in the 

Columbia River Basin. The Framework is based on a simple premise: our 

actions are designed to influence environmental attributes in a manner 

that changes biological performance to better meet basin management 

goals. We work from a set of strategies at multiple geographic scales 

(basin, province, and subbasin) that pertain to biological objectives also at 

those scales, which in turn pertain to an overall vision (Figure I.1).

A set of Scientific Principles provides the scientific foundation for this 

Framework. These principles form the basis for the biological objectives, 
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.2

working hypotheses, and strategic guidelines that will provide specific 

direction for program measures.

The Multi-Species Framework and associated tools can be applied over a 

wide range of geographic scales and can help resource managers plan, 

implement, and coordinate actions in areas as large as the entire Columbia 

River Basin, or in the smallest tributary providing that reliable data on 

habitats and populations are available at each scale. The Framework and 

tools provide a consistency among fish and wildlife analyses across 

multiple spatial scales. By this report, regional managers are provided a 

powerful tool for conducting cumulative effects analysis of actions 

designed to enhance fish and wildlife populations or economic 

development.

The ecological information structure embedded in the Framework is 

designed to describe the ecosystem at multiple levels of spatial and 

biological organization. Its purpose is to identify and organize key 

assumptions about the environment and about habitats for selected 

species of management concern, key ecological functions (KEFs) of fish 

and wildlife, and biological performance of populations being analyzed. 

This structure serves to document the rationale for expectations about the 

likely success of management actions to meet the goals and vision for the 

basin.

The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment methodology (EDT) is the 

modeling approach used for determining fish population response to 

proposed actions. Using EDT entails emphasizing the need for explicit 

operating hypotheses on which to base management decisions. The EDT 

approach supports the idea that the usefulness of adaptive management 

depends upon the theoretical underpinnings of management strategies 

and actions to be explicit, clearly stated, and tested. As such, the EDT 

modeling approach is an explanatory-based approach that relies on 

empirical data, and on expert opinion when the data are not available, in 

contrast to purely statistically based approaches that rely solely on 

probabilities and correlations derived from empirical data. 

In the Framework, we have developed an explicit set of biological analysis 

rules, or Bio-rules, to determine how changes to the environment affect 

salmonid performance. The Bio-rules are based on empirical data from 

research studies, general scientific literature, and expert opinion where 

appropriate. The rules are what drive the EDT model results, i.e., they 

produce the projections about chinook performance given implementation 

of management actions. Each rule is, in essence, an assumption about 
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.3

how the environment works and how salmonid populations respond. By 

documenting the rules, we document each assumption. Making the rules 

explicit helps reviewers to focus on the underlying assumptions in seeking 

explanations for inaccurate results, replacing poor assumptions with 

better ones, and expanding our common understanding. The debate is 

thus shifted away from focusing on outputs (i.e., fish numbers) to inputs 

(knowledge and understanding of how the system works).

Results of Fish Assessments

Current freshwater habitat productivity (from egg to smolt) has been 

reduced, to varying degrees, from its Historic Potential to Current 

Potential, in all tributaries to the Columbia-Snake Rivers. Current 

Potential ranges from about 25% of Historic Potential in the Columbia 

Plateau province to about 60% in the Mountain Snake province.

The environmental attributes that have had the greatest effect on 

freshwater habitat productivity are bed scour, fine sediment, riparian 

function, maximum monthly temperature, embeddedness, turbidity, and 

woody debris. 

Current Potential abundances of chinook in the Columbia River Basin 

range 4-17% of estimated Historic Potential abundances. This result –

suggesting a large decline since historic levels—is consistent with the 

status of several chinook populations being currently listed as threatened 

or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

Chinook productivity in the Columbia River Basin has been reduced on 

average to less than 20% of Historic Potential productivity. A reduction in 

productivity means that chinook populations recover more slowly from 

low abundance. Actions that increase productivity would reduce the time 

required for chinook populations to reach recovery levels.

Reduction in chinook life history diversity ranges from 30% to 60% of the 

historic, dependent on race. Life history diversity refers to the multitude 

of life history pathways (temporally and spatially connected sequences 

life history segments) available for the species to complete its life cycle. 

The large drop in life history diversity likely makes these populations less 

resilient to environmental change, thereby increasing their risk of 

extinction.

By ESU, chinook abundance is currently 1-9% of Historic Potential 

abundance. Across all chinook ESUs, chinook productivity and life 
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.4

history diversity have been reduced to 11-30% and 16-84% of Historic 

Potential productivity and life history diversity, respectively.

All of the three alternatives we analyzed, regardless of their worldview 

basis, would likely increase overall chinook abundance by more than 

~100% from current abundance levels. Therefore, the implementation of 

any of the three alternatives would likely result in a significant increase in 

chinook abundance. 

The results of the analysis indicate that the actions included in Alternative 

2 (dam removal, moderate-to-high level of tributary improvement) 

outperform all other alternatives in terms of increasing chinook 

population abundance, regardless of the assumptions examined. 

Alternative 2 produces the greatest benefits (i.e., increases in chinook 

abundance) when it is assumed that chinook juvenile transportation is 

ineffective, in-river survival rates are low, ocean nearshore survival is 

high, and hatchery fish fitness and post-release survival are low.

Alternative 5 improves chinook production abundance potential to 

between 114% and 216% of Current Potential. This alternative performs 

best when it is assumed that transportation is relatively ineffective, inriver juvenile survival is low, nearshore ocean survival rates are high, and 

habitat restoration actions in the tributaries are effective. 

Alternative 6 improves chinook performance to between 107% and 122% 

of Current. Most of the chinook production increase in this alternative is a 

result of improvements made in tributary habitat and hatchery fish 

fitness. Thus, this result depends on the assumptions that tributary 

habitats and fitness of hatchery fish most affect positively the future 

abundance of chinook.

Results of Wildlife Assessments

The wildlife analysis focused on species-specific issues and on systemlevel issues. To demonstrate the species-specific, we analyzed three 

species: American black bear, bald eagle, and American beaver. Key 

points are as follows.

We have developed a joint fish and wildlife assessment framework for the 

entire Columbia River Basin that uses a common approach to databases 

on habitats and species. The database is structured to also accommodate 

finer scaled data for analyses of smaller geographic areas and scales than 
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.5

those included in this report. In addition, the Framework fish and wildlife 

population assessment methods have the same theoretical basis.

All three alternatives that we analyze here demonstrated benefits for black 

bear and some benefits for bald eagle. Negative influences on the bald 

eagle habitat (as measured by a Habitat Condition Index, HCI) 

outweighed the beneficial influences on bald eagle habitats. A change 

map for the bald eagle illustrates where negative and beneficial influences 

were detected. At the basin scale, differences between alternatives on bald 

eagle and black bear were not discernable due to the very large area of the 

basin in relation to the relatively small amount of change proposed and 

our ability to depict species key habitat features through out the basin; 

such differences will become more obvious at finer geographic scales.

Alternative 2 could provide benefits for beaver and bald eagle due to 

restoration of wetland and riparian areas along reaches where dams are 

removed. Efforts to restore and preserve shrub-steppe, as stipulated 

under this alternative, will have little benefit for bald eagle and black bear, 

which are species that are not closely associated with shrub-steppe. Of 

course, it would benefit many other wildlife species that are so associated. 

Tributary restoration will benefit all three wildlife species evaluated.

Alternative 5 proposes restoring connectivity of shrub steppe reserves that 

would not particularly benefit, and that could have a negative influence 

on key environmental correlates for, black bear and bald eagle. Increased 

effort to restore tributary habitat, especially forested and riparian habitats 

would benefit all three wildlife species evaluated. Benefits for the black 

bear could occur more in poorer quality habitat (i.e., shrub steppe adjacent 

to forested area) and as a result of decreased roading. The bear analysis 

included input from the chinook analysis. For example, the actions in 

some alternatives resulted in an additional 75 6-HUCs having increased 

salmon carcass abundance, which is a key environmental correlate for 

black bear. 

Quantitative analyses for the beaver failed due to the lack of consistent 

fine scale data of key habitat features across the entire basin. Nonetheless, 

subbasin managers should not abandon analyses for the beaver at finer 

geographic scales. Finer scale data on habitat variables such as tributary 

gradient will likely be more available at the subbasin and watershed 

scales.

Alternative 6 proposes less preservation along mainstem Columbia River 

and less restoration in tributary habitat especially on private land. This 
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.6

will result in less benefit for all three wildlife species assessed. The 

reliance on hatcheries would not benefit the 110 species of wildlife that 

use salmon carcasses; in fact, de-emphasizing the natural breeding and 

carcass stages of anadromous fish (especially salmon) in favor of hatchery 

use may provide poorly for these 110 wildlife species.

Results of Integrated Fish-Wildlife Assessments

Ecological relationships between salmon and wildlife indicate that the 

strongest associations in fresh water habitat are between 110 species of 

wildlife and salmon carcasses, and between 50 species of wildlife and 

salmon smolts.

Losses in ecological function of terrestrial wildlife communities may have 

occurred across the basin between Historic Potential and Current Potential 

conditions. These losses may be partially restored by any of the three 

alternatives, which would serve to at least partially restore some of the 

terrestrial environments that have declined since historic time.

Several key ecological functions (KEFs) of wildlife, such as transportation 

of seeds, would be at least partially restored to Historic Potential levels of 

functional redundancy (number of species with each function) by any of 

the three alternatives, but other KEFs, such as primary cavity excavation, 

might still decline because of continued loss of forest cover.

Findings Related to Scientific Uncertainty and Potential 

Management Risk

Predictions of biological performance depend on assumptions in each 

alternative, where the assumptions differ according to two different 

worldviews, which we call Technology Pessimistic and Technology 

Optimistic. We used this type of analysis to compare the alternatives by 

providing regional decision makers with a clear assessment of the risks 

and critical uncertainties embedded in each alternative and associated 

worldview.

In all of the alternatives, we assumed that management actions can be 

implemented as designed. This means that dams can be removed and 

habitat can be improved, in some cases dramatically, on both public and 

private lands. In the non-modeling world (i.e., real world) some actions 

may be politically impossible or practically difficult to implement or, over 

time, they may become socially unacceptable. Thus, the degree to which 
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.7

the various alternatives can be practically implemented likely vary, and 

our analyses do not take this variation into account.

Alternative 2 performs better for chinook population recovery under the 

Technology Pessimistic worldview and poorer under the Technology 

Optimistic view. Alternative 2 is projected to produce a larger increase in 

chinook abundance from current levels, than either of the other two 

alternatives regardless of the worldview. 

Management actions under Alternative 2 would emphasize natural over 

hatchery production of fish. This emphasis poses greater weight on 

assumptions regarding our ability to improve and recover natural salmon 

habitat. As management actions designed to improve and recover natural 

salmon habitat likely will require many decades to both implement and 

reap fish survival benefits, the pay-off as to when the region could see the 

run sizes depicted for the alternative may be longer than under the other 

alternatives which rely more heavily on hatcheries. But there are other 

issues related to natural vs. hatchery stock that extend to questions of

impacts on wildlife species that rely on adult salmon and salmon 

carcasses, and the arrays of ecological functions provided by that set of 

wildlife. 

Because the predicted increase in chinook abundance for Alternative 2 is 

greater than that for the other alternatives under all scenarios 

(worldviews), there is less uncertainty associated with this alternative 

regarding the production of more chinook. Under the best-case scenario, 

chinook abundance may increase by as much as 381% from Current 

Potential levels; worst case would be 164%.

Alternative 2 is projected to substantially increase chinook abundance, 

productivity, and life-history diversity in all ESUs. Thus, there is less 

uncertainty associated with this alternative with regard to recovering 

listed chinook stocks.

Of the five ESUs analyzed, chinook performance increased the least in 

ESU 12 and ESU 13 located in the upper Columbia River. This is 

especially true with chinook productivity, which for ESU 12 is actually 

reduced under Alternatives 5 and 6. These data point to the fact that 

actions in all of the alternatives have been focused primarily on improving 

chinook performance in the Snake River (ESUs 14 and 15). To reduce the 

extinction risk for stocks originating in the upper Columbia River, 

consideration could be given to implementing more actions in these ESUs.
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.8

We estimated that the cost of implementing Alternative 2 is $765 million a 

year, and of implementing Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 $390 million 

and $210 million, respectively. Thus, to reduce uncertainty of response 

and recovery of chinook populations to the level shown for Alternative 2, 

the region may need to spend an additional $375-555 million a year 

(CH2MHill 2000).

Some of the actions included in Alternative 2 may not be internally 

consistent. Alternative 2 emphasizes natural production of chinook, yet 

still allows for the continuation of a large chinook hatchery production 

program. Because there is still considerable debate (uncertainty) as to the 

impact that hatchery fish have on wild stocks, either eliminating, 

curtailing, or reforming the hatchery program could reduce this 

inconsistency. In addition, at least under Alternative 2, studies should 

continue to quantify the effect of hatchery stock on the long-term fitness of 

native stock.

We project that implementation of Alternatives 5 and 6 will result in a 

Columbia River system heavily dependent upon hatchery production to 

achieve the respective chinook performance objectives of these 

alternatives. This is especially true if the Technology Optimistic 

worldview more accurately represents the State of Nature. A decision to 

place a large emphasis on hatchery production may pose significant risk 

to natural (wild) fish through the mechanisms of competition, disease, 

genetic introgression and harvest, and may sacrifice some of the wildlife 

assemblages and their ecological functions associated with feeding on 

mature salmon and salmon carcasses. A major assumption inherent in 

both Alternative 5 and 6 is that the region can maintain a large-scale 

hatchery program and also increase natural chinook abundance through 

aggressive habitat measures directed at the tributaries. 

All of the alternatives require a substantial increase in freshwater 

productivity to increase chinook performance throughout the Columbia 

River Basin. Alternative 5 requires the most improvement in freshwater 

habitat, while Alternative 6 requires the least. At a minimum, the 

alternatives assume that freshwater habitat productivity can be improved 

by 35% over Current Potential levels. This is a relatively large 

improvement that may not be achievable because of either social 

constraints or the ineffectiveness of habitat management actions, but that 

lies in the purview of decision-makers, not biologists. 

The preceding paragraph should not be interpreted to mean that a 35% 

improvement is needed in freshwater habitat in all reaches of the 
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.9

Columbia River Basin. Instead, the correct interpretation is that the 

alternatives require that we eliminate at least 35% of the identified habitat 

problems. These problems may be as simple as removing a small 

blockage or as complex as restoring late summer stream flows in a 

tributary dewatered as a result of agricultural practices. Regardless, there 

is still considerable uncertainty that this range of improvement in 

freshwater habitat can be achieved. However, the exact scale of the effort, 

and thus probable success, will not be known until after a diagnosis has 

been completed for all of the subbasins. The diagnosis could be 

performed as part of the assessment and subbasin planning phases of the 

Fish and Wildlife Program.

Under the best-case scenarios, our analyses suggest that Alternatives 2, 5, 

and 6 may produce 992,000, 728,000, and 755,000 chinook adults, 

respectively. Under the worst-case scenarios, our analyses suggest that 

Alternative 2, 5, and 6 may result in decreases in chinook production to 

898,000, 652,000 and 428,000 chinook, respectively. The difference 

between the best case (Alternative 2) and worst case (Alternative 6) is 

approximately 564,000 adults. This defines the maximum reward possible 

for choosing the right alternative and State of Nature. Because there is 

much uncertainty around this estimate, it is up to resource managers to 

decide whether doubling or halving the number – given our uncertainty 

over these numbers - would influence their selection of one approach, or 

set of actions, over another set.

We assumed each alternative would provide a different level of habitat 

restoration effort (intensity), dependent on whether the habitat is located 

on private or public lands. Alternative 2 places equal effort in improving 

habitat on private and public lands. Alternative 5 emphasizes habitat 

actions on public over private, whereas Alternative 6 requires the same 

amount of effort as Alternative 5 does for public lands but significantly 

less on public lands. We assumed that there is greater uncertainty about 

fish response associated with an alternative that requires substantial 

improvement in habitat on private lands in comparison to an alternative 

that relies on actions on public lands.

We also assumed under all alternatives that hatchery fish survival can be 

improved through hatchery reform initiatives and that this improvement 

would result in a ~50% increase in hatchery fish survival. Studies 

underway in Yakima and other basins should help determine the validity 

of this assumption in the next three years.
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.10

Recommendations on a Research, Monitoring, and 

Evaluation Program

Biological objectives can be used to focus monitoring and evaluation 

efforts to track progress towards basin and province goals. The biological 

objectives we used in our analyses were based on an explicit set of 

hypotheses as represented in the EDT model. The hypotheses (Bio-rules) 

themselves are derived from a synthesis of scientific literature, research 

studies, and specific analyses using statistical tools such as h-VSP being 

developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the models 

developed within PATH. The Council can use EDT to evaluate subbasin 

plans for their contribution to the larger scale (province and basin) vision 

and biological objectives. To develop biological objectives, EDT could be 

used to describe the amount of environmental change needed within a 

province or subbasin to meet the overall vision. Subbasin plans would 

then detail the strategies and actions needed to make this amount of 

change across the province.

Biological objectives could be based on three characterizations of the 

environment: (1) the Current Potential condition, (2) the adopted resource 

management program, and (3) the Historic Potential condition. The 

Current and Historic Potential conditions are based on information 

gathered at the 6-HUC level. The characterization of the future conditions 

could be based on the increase in performance desired and the change in 

quantity and quality of attributes required to achieve the desired 

performance. EDT can be used to determine the amount of change from 

current conditions to achieve a desired condition. Thus, EDT can be used 

to help set the biological objectives for conditions in the basin by helping 

to determine what is possible.

Biological objectives would be established for aquatic and terrestrial 

habitat and biological performance. Candidate biological objectives 

include changes in the 45 environmental modeled amounts of habitat, fish 

survival rates, and modeled parameters such fish productivity, life history 

diversity and abundance.

Three levels of monitoring could be included in the Framework: 

implementation, effectiveness, and validation. 

Implementation monitoring is used to ensure that strategies and 

management actions are implemented as specified by management 

guidelines. 
Section I — Summary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page I.11

Effectiveness monitoring is used to determine if the rules developed for 

estimating an action’s effect on habitat attributes are indeed correct. It is 

also used to determine if mid-course corrections to the management 

strategies are needed due to the ineffectiveness of the strategy, changing 

environmental conditions, or real-world limitations. Effectiveness 

monitoring intends to confirm that the implemented action is having the 

predicted effect on the targeted habitat attribute. If not, then the rule will 

be changed to better fit the monitoring data.

Validation monitoring is used to confirm that as habitat attributes change, 

salmon populations respond as predicted by the EDT model and other 

models used in the assessment. In other words, validation monitoring 

tracks trends in population performance measures that imply goals are 

being achieved. Validation monitoring tests the veracity of the major 

scientific assumptions underlying the assessments. This would require 

statistical trend analyses of empirical data on habitats and populations. 

A Scientific Advisory Board could advise on various scientific and 

technical aspects of the Framework plan. These aspects are listed 

individually.
Section II — Introduction

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page II.1

INTRODUCTION

The summary is organized as follows:

History and Background

Objectives

Toward Integrated Assessment and Management

Sections of this Report

History and Background

The Multi-Species Framework Project was intended to help foster a 

regional perspective of the ecology and management of fish, wildlife, and 

ecosystems of the Columbia River Basin (McConnaha 1999). The 

Framework Project involved a multitude of stakeholders and managers 

from throughout the region and produced a range of visions and potential 

planning alternatives. Seven of the alternatives that emerged were 

reassessed using the Framework approach and forecasts of their ecological 

and economic impacts at the basin and province scale determined (NPPC 

2000a; NPPC 2000b).

 Following the preliminary analyses and subsequent review and screening 

of the input data, three of the seven alternatives were reanalyzed. This 

report presents the results of this reanalysis and documents the various 

databases and modeling and assessment procedures, including the 

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) method, used to forecast 

potential impacts. 

Objectives

The Multi-Species Framework analysis presented herein aims to:

• describe the process, Scientific Principles, and analysis tools that are 

incorporated into the Framework,

• show regional fish and wildlife managers how the Framework process 

can contribute to the development of proposed actions that are 

effective, based on sound science, and implemented in a biologically 

sound and cost-effective manner,
Section II — Introduction

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page II.2

• illustrate databases, methods, and models that are useful in analyzing 

past, current, and future habitats and populations of fish and wildlife, 

and especially in considering an ecologically integrated approach to 

fish and wildlife assessment and management in the Basin,

• determine the probable effectiveness of the three alternatives analyzed 

to improve fish and wildlife performance in the Columbia River Basin,

• provide regional decision makers with a clear assessment of the risks 

and critical uncertainties embedded in each of the alternatives, and

• describe the basis for a research, monitoring, and evaluation program 

needed to address the critical uncertainties identified.

The primary intent of the analysis is not the selection of a preferred 

alternative for implementation — that choice is a policy decision to be 

made by the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) after extensive 

consultation with natural resource management agencies, Indian tribes, 

industry, environmental groups, and the public. The analysis presented 

in this report will, however, help guide the selection process. The 

alternative ultimately selected for implementation may be among those 

analyzed as part of this Multi-Species Framework Project, or it might be 

one developed through another process, or the Council may choose to 

combine strategies identified in some or all of the alternatives to form a 

new alternative. Regardless of the particular alternative chosen, the 

Scientific Principles and analysis tools developed through the Framework 

process will contribute to the development of proposed actions that are 

effective, based on sound population ecology and ecosystem science, and 

implemented in a biologically defensible manner.

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the Framework analysis 

results were designed to provide input and guidance for decisions made 

at the basin and province levels. Conclusions regarding fish and wildlife 

performance at the subbasin or watershed level should not be specifically 

derived from the current analysis until the quality of the data is reviewed 

and refined for finer scale analyses. To accomplish the daunting task of 

describing some 259,000 miles of streams (over 7000 subwatershed units) 

in terms of 45 attributes for each month, and the array of terrestrial 

habitats throughout the basin, we relied heavily on previous efforts and 

on the valued input from many organizations and scientist familiar with 

the Columbia Basin. Where the attributes required were not available or of 

unacceptable quality, modeling techniques were used to estimate them. 

Later, data quality and resolution can be sufficiently improved in the 
Section II — Introduction

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page II.3

subbasin assessment phase to reliably support subbasin scale analysis and 

planning.

Toward Integrated Assessment and Management

One of the major themes of this report is the move toward an integrated 

assessment of fish and wildlife habitats, populations, and their ecological 

roles in their ecosystems. This does not remove focus on species; it 

complements it. We still promote individual modeling, analysis, and 

management of single species and selected populations of conservation 

interest. 

We provide a modeling evaluation of single species or populations of fish 

(principally salmon) by using a relatively new modeling approach that 

evaluates their habitat conditions across life history stages, landscapes, 

and time. Some of this modeling is based on expert judgment, but it 

serves to provide a basis for better understanding and depicting cause and 

effect of conditions that influence fish populations. We do recognize that 

cause and effect models are not fully substitutable for empirically based 

statistical models, and vice versa, and both have important and 

complementary roles in resource management (Kareiva and Mobrand 

1999).

We also provide modeling evaluations of a few selected wildlife species to 

demonstrate species-specific wildlife assessments at the basin and 

province scales. We also develop a conceptual foundation and assessment 

approach to a more fully integrated evaluation of fish and wildlife species 

– aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems – by evaluating how habitats, 

populations, and ecological roles interact among species throughout the 

Basin. This integrative approach offers a new vision for how cumulative 

effects assessments and resource management can more fully span and 

integrate fish and wildlife systems. It also offers a framework for using 

existing modeling tools (e.g., Figure II.1).

Sections of This Report

This Progress Report is presented in the following sections:

Section III. Methods

We present the scientific and conceptual framework underlying the 

assessment, and details of the process used for conducting the analysis of 

fish, wildlife, and integrated fish-wildlife ecological functions. After 

reviewing this section, the reader should have a firm understanding of the 

Section II — Introduction

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page II.4

scientific foundation and the process used to produce the outcomes 

described in the results and discussion section of the report. 

Section IV. Results and Discussion 

We present the results of the analysis as they apply to the Framework and 

to each of the three alternatives examined. We compare environmental 

conditions as they exist today, as they may have existed without human 

influence in the past, and as they may exist in the future under each 

alternative. We present specific results on fish populations and species 

(principally salmon), selected wildlife species, and on integrated 

assessments of fish and wildlife populations and their ecological 

functions. 

Section V. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

We describe the fundamental concepts underlying a research, monitoring, 

and evaluation program that could be developed to address critical 

uncertainties. The purpose of such a program is to determine whether 

biological objectives are being met over time. 
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-1

METHODS - FISH SPECIES

This section of the Methods addresses fish; it is organized as follows:

Introduction

Development of Current Potential and Historic Potential Landscapes

Development of Habitat Attributes

Development of Hatchery Attributes

Development of Harvest Attributes

Population Structure

General Chinook Life Histories

Application to the Columbia River

Chinook Population Descriptions

Analysis Method

Uncertainty and World View Assumptions

World View Assumptions

Data Quality

Introduction

The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) process is a habitat–life 

history approach for evaluating potential future performance of fish and 

wildlife populations (Mobrand et al. 1997). The analytical tool used in 

the EDT process is an expert system—a compilation of data, 

information, and knowledge into a hypothesis describing past, present, 

and future performance of fish and wildlife populations. This expert 

system translates environmental attribute data into population survival 

parameters, thus creating a survival landscape. Population performance 

across this landscape is then estimated, based on life history 

characteristics of the species of interest. In this report, we detail the 

methods used to model the survival landscapes and perform the 

population analysis for the Multi-Species Framework coarse screening 

analysis. We define variables used, identify data sources, and describe 

how this data is used in the EDT model. 
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-2

Development of Current Potential and Historic Potential 

Landscapes

This analysis defines and describes hypothetical future conditions, or 

alternatives, with reference to two baseline conditions, Current and 

Historic. The current baseline describes the average environment 

available to fish and wildlife over the most recent decade. The historic 

baseline is a hypothetical reconstruction of conditions prior to nonnative human influences. The terms Current Potential and Historic 

Potential refer to the ability of the baseline conditions to support fish and 

wildlife. This section describes the methods used to estimate baseline 

environmental conditions for the coarse screening analysis.

Development of Habitat Attributes

Freshwater and marine environmental conditions are described in terms 

of habitat attributes. In the following subsection we identify these 

attributes and how they are estimated.

Freshwater

Tributaries and mainstem are discussed separately in the sections that 

follow. 

Tributaries - Columbia and Snake River Tributaries

This section defines the environmental attributes used in Columbia 

River tributaries and describes the steps in translating them into the 

biometrics in the population analysis. A general discussion of the 

analytical framework and the data structure and terminology is found in 

Appendices A and B. In brief, three levels of data are used in EDT: Level 

1 or environmental input, Level 2 or environmental attributes, and Level 

3 or biological performance attributes.

Summarization and completion of Level 1 environmental input data

The initial step in the data organization procedure was to summarize all 

of the available Level 1 environmental input data at the 6-HUC scale. We 

assembled environmental data from various data sources, including: 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) data, 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data, EPA's STORET environmental 

data, StreamNet, and USGS stream flow data. Data elements that were 

identified as original source data (Table III.A.1) we summarized at the 6-

HUC scale, preparing them for translation into conclusions about Level 

2 environmental attributes. A more complete description of these data 

sources and how the data were summarized is found in a separate 


Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-3

report by Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories (in preparation) (Table 

III.A.1).

Some Level 1 environmental input data were classified as derived Level 1 

variables (Table III.A.1) because they required separate calculations. For 

example, several channel variables (such as channel slope and channel 

length) required independent calculations with digital elevation maps in 

a Geographic Information System (GIS). Tributary runoff required use of 

a hydrologic model to estimate the flow coming from each of the 6-HUC 

units. Other variables associated with water quantity and quality (e.g., 

flow, temperature, sediment, and nutrients) required explicit flow 

routing calculations to incorporate the impact of upstream processes.

Stream channel morphometry (derived data)

Basic channel morphometry was characterized using Digital Elevation 

Models (DEM), Digital Line Graphs, and GIS techniques. Average 

channel length and slope of the main channel within each 6-HUC unit 

was derived using a 90-meter DEM, which was the scale of data 

available for the entire study domain at the time the analysis was done.1

Channel slopes from the elevation of the main channel as it leaves and 

enters the 6-HUC unit were estimated, and channel lengths were 

estimated by summing the lengths of the stream segments composing 

the main channel and corrected for sinuosity (described below). In 

headwater 6-HUC units, the slope is based on the elevation of the 

highest main channel reach segment and the outlet elevation, placing 

constraints on both the maximum and minimum slopes. In certain 6-

HUC units, inadequate data were available to estimate slope; in which 

case, we developed similarity relationships between other 6-HUCs 

based on area and elevation.

Estimates of sinuosity were needed to correct the estimates of channel 

length and slope described above. Channel lengths derived as straight 

lines between reach segment endpoints, as produced from the DEM, can 

significantly underestimate both total channel length and slope. We 

derived an approximation of sinuosity as a function of the combined 

density of urban and agricultural lands and the channel’s uncorrected 

estimate of slope. These land uses generally reduce sinuosity due to 

channel straightening and bank hardening practices. The function is 

expressed as a simple 2-dimensional lookup table, relating sinuosity to 

both land use and the uncorrected channel slope. Channels with high 

slopes are less likely to meander, resulting in lower sinuosity values.

 

1

 At the time the analysis was performed, data at the 90-meter scale only were available 

for the entire study domain. Since then, 30-meter data have become available for the 

entire area, which could significantly increase the accuracy of the derived parameters.
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-4

Estimates of wetted channel width were derived using Manning’s 

equation, a standard hydrologic method. The equation relates wetted 

width to flow, cross sectional geometry, and Manning’s roughness 

coefficients. All channel cross-sections were assumed to have an 

inverted equilateral triangular shape, an assumption that tends to bias 

estimates on the low side. We believe that this technique, however, 

compensates for the possible overestimation of production in streams 

with wide shallow margins, resulting from the inclusion of all wetted 

area in the estimation of fish production. This method of estimating 

channel width incorporated no information about valley type—for 

example, whether the channel cuts across an alluvial plain or is tightly 

confined within a canyon. No reliable data were available to describe 

valley type for each 6-HUC unit. As these types of data become 

available, estimation of channel width using this method can be 

improved. We describe derivation of flow estimates, used in estimating 

width, below.

Data with temporal patterns and routed downstream (derived data)

Derivation of those environmental input data elements that are strongly 

related to stream flow, took into account seasonal runoff, temperature 

patterns, and flow route through the stream network. These stream 

flow-related attributes are runoff, natural flow, actual flow (minus 

diversions), water velocity, water temperature, fine sediment load, and 

nutrient load; they are discussed below.

Runoff defines the amount of flow generated from each 6-HUC unit into 

the stream network; runoff was estimated from the Distributed 

Hydrologic Soils Vegetation Model (DHSVM). In this model, flow is 

estimated before considering any anthropogenic activities (e.g. 

irrigation). Combining runoff from each 6-HUC unit with runoff from 

upstream 6-HUC units generates the estimates of natural streamflow, 

without consideration for water withdrawals. Each 6-HUC is divided 

into five elevation bands to estimate snowmelt where significant 

elevation changes occur, and estimates of daily minimum and maximum 

air temperatures and precipitation for Eastside drainages are 

incorporated. For the Westside drainages, data were obtained for several 

National Climate Data Center stations. Both of these records were 

combined to provide a 40-year daily climate record. The DHSVM was 

then used to simulate the entire 40-year record for all 6-HUC units in the 

basin with a 3-hour time interval. Runoff values were aggregated to a 

monthly time interval. A validation test performed with data from the 

Middle Fork Flathead River produced excellent agreement with 

empirical data (r2~0.90). Baseflow was assumed to be a fixed fraction of 

the total annual precipitation that is specified as a parameter for the 
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-5

entire study area (a report under preparation by Battelle Pacific NW 

Laboratories gives a complete description of the method).

Natural stream flow departing each 6-HUC unit (i.e., flow without 

consideration of any upstream diversion or regulation) was estimated by 

accumulating upstream flows and adding the 6-HUC-specific runoff on 

a monthly basis, providing simple mass conserving estimates of stream 

flow. This procedure could not be used to characterize extreme flow 

events; however, extreme flow event should be incorporated in future 

analyses. Also, recent improvements in DHSVMs should allow 

refinements in estimation of base flows. Currently, the DHSVM results 

are only validated for the Middle Fork Flathead River, Montana. Other 

sites with clean flow data records should be used to further improve 

confidence in the model's calibration. 

Actual flows (i.e., flows as modified by upstream regulation and 

diversion) were more difficult to estimate because data for diversions 

are limited to annual values at the 4-HUC scale. The method employed 

required disaggregating procedures to distribute diverted water and 

water withdrawals to each of the 6-HUC units within their 4-HUC basin. 

In general, flow regulation resulting from upstream reservoir operations 

was simulated by extracting a fraction of each reservoir's storage 

capacity from the available streamflow during certain months (storage 

period) and returning it to the downstream 6-HUC units during other 

months (release period). 

We accounted for diversion losses using the following rules:

• Irrigation return flow was based on the relative 6-HUC areas defined 

as having a land use class of agriculture.

• Conveyance loss return flows were distributed uniformly over all of 

the 6-HUC units within their 4-HUC.

• Groundwater withdrawals were prorated based on total available 

base flow, including base flow from irrigation and conveyance losses. 

• Surface water withdrawals were prorated from each 6-HUC unit 

based on the available flow, including upstream flow.

Each of the forty years of runoff data were routed using the same 

diversion and regulation schedule to provide an estimate of the longterm interannual flow variability (Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories, in 

preparation).

Average water velocity within the main channel of each 6-HUC was 

estimated using the Manning’s equation referred to above, based on 

estimates of actual flow. Estimates of average velocity were developed 
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-6

for a specified slope, streamflow, channel cross-section geometry, and 

roughness coefficient. These estimates would be improved considerably 

by inclusion of valley type information, which was not available for this 

analysis.

Average water temperatures were estimated using a simple temperature 

model based on the conservation of energy and the temperature 

equilibrium concept (Vail, 2000, pers. comm). This approach is most 

applicable in areas where irrigation withdrawals occur. Water 

temperature in each 6-HUC unit is estimated by adiabatic mixing of 

upstream flows with flows from the specific 6-HUC; water coming from 

various sources within the 6-HUC is assumed to have specific 

temperatures. Once the water from both local and upstream sources is 

mixed, the water is further altered by allowing it to transfer energy with 

the atmosphere based on the temperature equilibrium concept. Base 

flow (including irrigation return flow and conveyance losses) 

contributions are assumed to enter the river at the annual average air 

temperature. Surface water runoff (including irrigation) is assumed to 

take on the average monthly air temperature. Snowmelt is assumed to 

take on a temperature specified as a parameter. The temperature 

equilibrium concept allows for surface energy exchange based on the 

stream’s surface area (channel width times channel length), the stream’s 

residence time (channel length divided by velocity) within the 6-HUC, 

and the difference between the atmospheric and stream temperatures. 

The model did not incorporate effects of shading associated with 

riparian vegetation or unusually large inputs of natural groundwater; 

future uses of the model would require inclusion of these effects.

In estimating sediment load, supply of sediment was treated as a 

conservative, non-reactive constituent, neglecting important, but 

exceptionally difficult to accurately predict, processes of sediment 

deposition and re-suspension. Hence the estimation of Level 1 sediment 

load should be considered a relative measure without a specific metric.2

This method assumes that the index employed behaves as a 

conservative, fully-mixed tracer of actual sediment loading. The local 

loading of sediment (from a 6-HUC unit) was assumed to be a function 

of the surface runoff and the relative fractions of various land use classes 

including urban, agriculture, range, and forest. The load from all land 

use classes was assumed proportionate to the fraction of the area with a 

 

2

 Notwithstanding the difficulty of addressing deposition and resuspension, the 

sediment load estimates were used to generate an initial set of conclusions about how 

sediment is passed along and manifested as intragravel fine sediment, embeddedness, 

and turbidity. These estimates provided an initial, yet rough, set of data for individuals 

who examined the results in the coarse screening procedure.
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-7

high soil erosion hazard potential. Additionally, the sediment from 

forested lands was assumed to be proportionate to road density and the 

sediment from the range land proportionate to grazing intensity. Each 

land use class was given a separate sediment generation term, specified 

as a parameter. The resultant sediment load index was treated as a 

concentration, mixed with sources from upstream and routed 

downstream in a mass conserving procedure.

We estimated nutrient load associated with urbanization and agriculture 

using a similar procedure as that applied for sediment, treating nutrients 

as a single, conservative, non-reactive constituent. This estimation 

neglects the assimilative capacity of the stream to remove nutrients. 

Hence the estimates of Level 1 nutrient load should be regarded as 

relative and not tied to a specific metric. The local load of nutrients was 

assumed to be a function of surface runoff, baseflow, and the relative 

fractions of the land use classes urban, agriculture, and range. In 

addition, the input of nutrients from range land was assumed to be 

proportionate to grazing intensity. Each land use class was given a 

separate nutrient generation term, specified as a parameter. The 

resultant sediment load index was treated as a concentration, mixed 

with sources from upstream and routed downstream in a mass 

conserving procedure.

A more complete description of the methods applied to complete the 

Level 1 environmental input data sets can be found in the report from 

Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories (in preparation).

Translation to Level 2 environmental attributes

We translated Level 1 environmental input data into conclusions about 

Level 2 environmental attributes using a set of explicit rules, or in some 

cases, by summarizing directly into the categories defined by some 

environmental attributes (Table III.A.2). In the latter situation, the Level 

1 data elements were the same as those defined by environmental 

attributes; hence no rule was required. The categorical conclusions 

defined for each environmental attribute are listed in Appendix B. The 

rules used for this translation procedure are described in a report under 

preparation by Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories (Table III.A.2).

Translation to Level 3 biological performance attributes

We formulated a set of rules for translating Level 2 environmental 

attributes into the survival-related values of Level 3 biological 

performance attributes (Table III.A.3) for chinook salmon (Appendix B). 

We developed the rules by first identifying the specific Level 2 

environmental attributes that were likely to be strongly, moderately, or 

weakly associated with each of the Level 3 performance attributes, for 
 Name Definition

Alkalinity Alkalinity of water (conductivity can be used as a surrogate) (at moderate flows)

Bed scour

Average depth and frequency of scour on small-cobble/gravel riffles during high 

flow events. Frequent indicates at least one event every 1-2 years. Particle sizes of 

substrate modified from Platts et al. (1983) based on information in Gordon et al. 

(1992): gravel (0.2 to 2.9 inch diameter), small cobble (2.9 to 7 inch diameter), large 

cobble (7 to 11.9 inch diameter), boulder (>11.9 inch diameter).

Benthos diversity and 

production Measure of the diversity and production of the benthos community.

Channel length

Length of the primary channel contained with the stream reach -- Note: this attribute 

will not be given by categories but rather will be a point estimate. Length of channel 

is given for the main channel only--multiple channels do not add length.

Channel width - month 

maximum width (ft)

Average width of the wetted channel during peak flow month (average monthly 

conditions). If the stream is braided or contains multiple channels, then the width 

would represent the sum of the wetted widths along a transect that extends across 

all channels. Note: Categories are not to be used for calculation of wetted surface 

area; categories here are used to designate relative stream size.

Channel width - month 

minimum width (ft)

Average width of the wetted channel. If the stream is braided or contains multiple 

channels, then the width would represent the sum of the wetted widths along a 

transect that extends across all channels. Note: Categories are not to be used for 

calculation of wetted surface area; categories here are used to designate relative 

stream size.

Confinement – 

Hydromodifications

The extent that man-made structures within or adjacent to the stream channel 

constrict flow (as at bridges) or restrict flow access to the stream's floodplain (due 

to streamside roads, revetments, diking or levees) or the extent that the channel 

has been ditched or channelized.

Confinement – natural

The extent that the valley floodplain of the reach is confined by natural features. It is 

determined as the ratio between the width of the valley floodplain and the bankful 

channel width. Note: this attribute addresses the natural (pristine) state of valley 

confinement only.

Dissolved oxygen Average dissolved oxygen within the water column for the specified time interval.

Embeddedness The extent that larger cobbles or gravel are surrounded by or covered by fine 

sediment.

Fine sediment Percentage of fine sediment within pool-tailouts and riffles.

Fish community 

richness Measure of the richness of the fish community (no. of fish taxa).

Fish pathogens The presence of pathogenic organisms (relative abundance and species present) 

having potential for affecting survival of stream fishes.

Fish species 

introductions

Extent of introductions of exotic fish species in the vicinity of the stream reaches 

under consideration.

Flow - change in 

interannual variability in 

high flows

A measure of between year variation in magnitude of high flow levels and/or the 

extent of change in overall high flow level during a month relative to an undisturbed 

watershed of comparable size, geology, and geography (or as would have existed 

in the pristine state).

Table III.A.2 Level 2 environmental attributes. All attributes except length can be treated as categorical.
Flow - changes in 

interannual variability in 

low flows

A measure of between year variation in the severity of low flow discharge during a 

month. Variation in low flows as applied here is relative to an undisturbed 

watershed of comparable size, geology, and geography (or as would have existed 

in the pristine state).

Flow - Intra daily (diel) 

variation

Variability in flow level during a daily period. This attribute is informative mainly for 

regulated rivers or when flow patterns are influenced by storm water runoff.

Flow - intra-annual flow 

pattern

The average extent of intra-annual flow variation during a month -- a measure of a 

stream's "flashiness" during a season.

Gradient Average gradient of the main channel of the reach over its entire length.

Habitat type - backwater 

pools Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising backwater pools.

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising beaver ponds. Note: 

these are pools located in the main or side channels, not part of off-channel habitat.

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder riffles

Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising large cobble/boulder 

riffles.

Habitat type - offchannel habitat factorA multiplier used to estimate the amount of off-channel habitat based on the wetted 

surface area of the all combined in-channel habitat.

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising pool tailouts and glides.

Habitat type - primary 

pools

Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising pools, excluding beaver 

ponds.

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles

Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising small cobble/gravel 

riffles.

Harassment The relative extent of poaching and/or harassment of fish within the stream reach.

Hatchery fish outplants The magnitude of hatchery fish outplants made into the drainage over the past 10 

years.

Hydrologic regime - 

natural

The natural flow regime within the reach of interest. Flow regime typically refers to 

the seasonal pattern of flow over a year; here it is inferred by identification of flow 

sources. This applies to an unregulated river or to the pre-regulation state of a 

regulated river.

Hydrologic regime – 

regulated

The change in the natural hydrograph caused by the operation of hydroelectric 

facilities in a watershed. Definition does not take into account daily flow fluctuations 

(See Flow-Intra-daily Variation attribute)

Icing Extent (magnitude and frequency) of icing events.

Metals - in water column The extent of dissolved heavy metals within the water column.

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

The extent of heavy metals and miscellaneous toxic pollutants within the stream 

sediments and/or soils adjacent to the stream channel.

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column

The extent of miscellaneous toxic pollutants (other than heavy metals) within the 

water column.

Nutrient enrichment The amount of nutrient enrichment consisting of such items as ammonia, nitrogen, 

phosphorous.

Obstructions to fish 

migration

Obstructions to fish passage by physical barriers (not dewatered channels or 

hindrances to migration caused by pollutants or lack of oxygen).
Predation risk

Level of predation risk on fish species due to presence of top level carnivores or 

unusual concentrations of other fish eating species. This is a classification of percapita predation risk, in terms of the likelihood, magnitude and frequency of 

exposure to potential predators (assuming other habitat factors are constant).

Riparian function A measure of riparian function that has been altered within the reach.

Salmon Carcasses Relative abundance of anadromous salmonid carcasses within watershed (e.g., 5-

HUC level) that can serve as nutrient sources for juvenile salmonid production.

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month) Maximum water temperatures within the stream reach during a month.

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month) Minimum water temperatures within the stream reach during a month.

Temperature - spatial 

variation

The extent of water temperature variation within the reach as influenced by inputs 

of groundwater.

Turbidity The relative extent of turbidity episodes within the stream reach.

Water withdrawals The number and relative size of water withdrawals in the stream reach.

Wood The amount of wood within the reach. Note definition of "large wood" under 

terms/clarification.

Table III.A.2 Level 2 environmental attributes. All attributes except length can be treated as categorical.
Attribute Definition

Channel 

stability

The effect of stream channel stability (within reach) on the relative survival or performance of 

the focus species; the extent of channel stability is with respect to its streambed, banks, and 

its channel shape and location.

Chemicals

The effect of toxic substances or toxic conditions on the relative survival or performance of 

the focus species. Substances include chemicals and heavy metals. Toxic conditions include 

low pH.

Competition 

(with hatchery 

fish)

The effect of competition with hatchery produced animals on the relative survival or 

performance of the focus species; competition might be for food or space within the stream 

reach.

Competition 

(with other 

species)

The effect of competition with other species on the relative survival or performance of the 

focus species; competition might be for food or space.

Flow

The effect of the amount of stream flow, or the pattern and extent of flow fluctuations, within 

the stream reach on the relative survival or performance of the focus species. Effects of flow 

reductions or dewatering due to water withdrawals are to be included as part of this attribute.

Food The effect of the amount, diversity, and availability of food that can support the focus species 

on the its relative survival or performance. 

Habitat 

diversity

The effect of the extent of habitat complexity within a stream reach on the relative survival or 

performance of the focus species.

Harassment The effect of harassment, poaching, or non-directed harvest (i.e., as can occur through hook 

and release) on the relative survival or performance of the focus species.

Key habitat The relative quantity of the primary habitat type(s) utilized by the focus species during a life 

stage; quantity is expressed as percent of wetted surface area of the stream channel.

Obstructions The effect of physical structures impeding movement of the focus species on its relative 

survival or performance within a stream reach; structures include dams and waterfalls.

Oxygen The effect of the concentration of dissolved oxygen within the stream reach on the relative 

survival or performance of the focus species.

Pathogens The effect of pathogens within the stream reach on the relative survival or performance of 

the focus species. The life stage when infection occurs is when this effect is accounted for.

Predation The effect of the relative abundance of predator species on the relative survival or 

performance of the focus species.

Salinity The effect of the concentration of salts within the reach on the relative survival or 

performance of the focus species.

Sediment load The effect of the amount of the amount of fine sediment present in, or passing through, the 

stream reach on the relative survival or performance of the focus species.

Temperature The effect of water temperature with the stream reach on the relative survival or performance 

of the focus species.

Withdrawals (or 

entrainment)

The effect of entrainment (or injury by screens) at water withdrawal structures within the 

stream reach on the relative survival or performance of the focus species. This effect does 

not include dewatering due to water withdrawals, which is covered by the flow attribute.

Table III.A.3 Level 3 biological performance attributes (biometrics). The measure of these attributes is in 

relation to the relative survival or performance of the focus species by life stage. These attributes act as 

"umbrella attributes," combining the effects of similar Level 2 attributes. Effects measured by these 

attributes are assessed relative to fully fit individuals when present in optimal environmental conditions.
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-8

each life stage (Appendix B). These Level 2 attributes are referred to as 

the primary, secondary, and tertiary environmental attributes affecting 

biological performance, respectively. 

Figure III.A.1 and Figure III.A.2 show an example using the Level 1 

attribute, sediment yield, three sediment-related Level 2 environmental 

attributes, and the resulting Level 3 biological performance attribute, 

fine sediment (Table III.A.3, Figure III.A.1).

The Level 3 biometric, fine sediment, is an estimate of the contribution of 

all sources of fine sediment on survival during the egg incubation life 

stage (egg deposition to fry emergence), as shown in Figure III.A.1 

above. Intragravel fine sediment is assumed to be the primary 

determinant of the effect of sediment on egg survival. Sediment effects 

are assumed to be increased in cases of high embeddedness or turbidity. 

Embeddedness would limit percolation into the area of the egg pocket, 

while high turbidity would overwhelm any gravel cleaning 

accomplished by the spawner in redd construction. Thus, the Level 2 

attributes, embeddedness and turbidity, are considered as secondary, or 

modifying attributes.

Figure III.A.2 also shows the contribution of all sources of fine sediment 

on survival, but for the inactive life stage (overwintering). In this life 

stage, embeddedness is assumed to be the primary determinant of the 

effect of sediment on the survival of overwintering fingerlings (loss of 

interstitial space). Sediment effects are assumed to be increased in cases 

of high turbidity (secondary) due to impairment of respiration or 

feeding. Intragravel fine sediment (tertiary) is assumed to further reduce 

survival in this life stage due to a reduction in deeper interstitial spaces.

The rules for translating Level 2 environmental attributes into the Level 

3 biological performance attributes are based on an extensive set of 

translation examples put together by Chris Frissell, with further input 

obtained from the Bio-rules Work Group.3 We reformatted the 

information from these data sets into the rule set applied here for 

chinook salmon, taking into account refinements in the definitions and 

index values of the Level 2 environmental attributes. The Bio-rules 

should be considered still in a state of development and refinement. 

Further review of the rules by regional scientists will help ensure their 

adequacy and consistency with up-to-date thinking and research on the 

effects of the attributes on salmonids. Moreover, we propose that a 

forum be developed to routinely review and update the rule sets as a 

 

3

 The BioRules Work Group consisted of Bob Bilby, Pete Bisson, Chris Frissell, Larry 

Lestelle, and Dale McCullough.


Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-9

way of promoting learning about the effects of the ecological attributes 

on fish and wildlife performance. Such a forum would help gain wider 

acceptance of the application of these kinds of rule sets for assessing the 

effects of environmental change on biological performance.

The full set of Bio-rules, as they are currently configured, is provided in 

Appendix B. Similar rule sets are under development for bull trout, 

steelhead trout, chum and coho salmon. Extending the chinook rule set 

to other species is a straightforward task involving consideration of 

relative sensitivities of different species to the common set of 

environmental attributes based on species differences in behavior, 

physiology, and size.

Mainstem – Columbia River and Snake River Habitat

Methods used for developing habitat and survival attributes for fish 

utilizing the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers are presented below 

for both the Historic Potential and Current Potential. 

Habitat Quality and Quantity

Biological rules do not exist for deriving mainstem habitat ratings; 

therefore, we constructed the quality ratings for mainstem habitat, for 

the Historic Potential and Current Potential, based on existing literature 

and the professional expertise of fisheries biologists familiar with both 

Columbia and Snake river systems. The biologists used the existing data 

and their knowledge to rate the following biological performance 

attributes for each river reach of interest:

• Habitat Quality

• Temperature

• Predation

• Competition with Hatchery Fish

• Competition with Other Species

• Habitat Diversity

We adjusted these ratings up or down to meet the juvenile system 

survival values presented below. A summary of the ratings for all river 

reaches rated is presented in Appendix C.

The quantity of both riverine and reservoir habitat presented under both 

conditions were estimated from USGS Topo maps, average monthly 

river flow, and reservoir size and length data presented in the CRiSP 1.5 

manual (Anderson et al., 1996).
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-10

River Flow

We obtained estimates of average monthly river flow for both the 

Columbia and Snake rivers under the Current Potential and Historic 

Potential from streamflow model runs developed by Council staff 

(Appendix D). The flow data used in modeling both conditions are 

summarized graphically in Table III.A.4 and Table III.A.5.

Juvenile Travel Time

We assumed that the time required for subyearling and yearling chinook 

to migrate through the mainstem corridor is affected by river flow 

(water velocity) and habitat types present (i.e., riverine or reservoir). 

Thus, juvenile migration speed is assumed to differ under the Current 

Potential (primarily reservoir) and Historic Potential (riverine). 

We developed subyearling and yearling chinook travel speeds for both 

conditions using CRiSP Model 4. A description of the model, inherent 

assumptions, formulas and inputs can be found in Zabel et al. (1997). In 

addition, for the Historic Potential, we estimated water velocity by 

dividing average monthly river flow by the average cross section of each 

stream reach. We used travel speed and timing data in this analysis to 

determine the survival conditions encountered by each juvenile as it 

migrates through the mainstem Snake and Columbia rivers.

Juvenile Migration Timing

We approximated subyearling and yearling juvenile migration timings 

from data developed by the Fish Passage Center (FPC 1998). These data 

are summarized in Table III.A.6 and were used in modeling both the 

Current Potential and Historic Potential (Table III.A.6).

Dam Survival (Juveniles)

Dam survival rates for juvenile salmonids are discussed below for the 

Current Potential only; dams do not exist for the Historic Potential, thus 

survival estimates are not needed for that condition.

The survival rate of juvenile salmonids migrating past Columbia and 

Snake river hydroelectric projects is dependent on riverine conditions, 

juvenile behavior, and physical facilities present at each project. We 

calculated both yearling and subyearling survival rates through 

spillways, turbines, and juvenile bypass systems for each project using 

data presented in the NMFS (2000a). The monthly survival values used 

in this analysis for both yearling and subyearling life-history patterns 

are shown in Table III.A.7 and Table III.A.8. It should be noted that the 

survival values do not include the mortality component associated with 

juvenile passage through reservoirs.

Dam Survival (Adults)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Snake 37,760 39,610 48,407 89,043 107,245 100,156 50,913 43,643 22,655 24,054 20,928 32,456

Columbia 207,900 198,279 154,250 228,089 287,186 290,140 195,951 163,881 99,886 109,622 109,304 155,839

Mid-Col 153,594 139,802 87,457 124,301 171,988 177,453 135,133 114,599 71,728 79,317 77,075 107,495

Table III.A.4 Average monthly flows used in modeling the Current Potential.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Snake 32,484 38,312 50,797 81,981 120,971 111,823 40,081 20,875 21,153 24,979 28,076 31,657

Columbia 82,258 93,725 117,171 213,915 415,627 465,011 251,442 133,313 92,277 82,123 83,077 85,051

Mid-Col 42,154 46,036 57,982 126,855 294,254 350,371 207,074 108,600 67,959 54,090 50,520 47,048

Table III.A.5. Average monthly flows used in modeling the Historic Potential.
Yearling 1-Apr 2-Apr May June July 1-Aug 2-Aug

 Snake 0.05 0.4 0.5 0.05

Columbia 0.05 0.15 0.75 0.05

Subyearling 1-Apr 2-Apr May June July 1-Aug 2-Aug

Snake 0.02 0.65 0.25 0.08

Columbia 0.4 0.5 0.1

Table III.A.6 Yearling and subyearling migration timing for Snake and Columbia River reaches.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.9 0.9 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 0.9

Little Goose 0.9 0.9 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 0.9

Lower Monumental 0.9 0.9 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.9 0.9

Ice Harbor 0.9 0.9 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.9 0.9

McNary 0.9 0.9 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97

John Day 0.9 0.9 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.9 0.9

The Dalles 0.9 0.9 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Bonneville 0.9 0.9 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.9 0.9

Rocky Reach 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Wells 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

 Table III.A.7 Monthly dam survival values for yearling chinook—Current Potential.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.9 0.9 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 0.9

Little Goose 0.9 0.9 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.9 0.9

Lower Monumental 0.9 0.9 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.9 0.9

Ice Harbor 0.9 0.9 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.9 0.9

McNary 0.9 0.9 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95

John Day 0.9 0.9 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.9 0.9

The Dalles 0.9 0.9 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Bonneville 0.9 0.9 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.9 0.9

Rocky Reach 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0.89 0.9 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0.89 0.9 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0.89 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Table III.A.8 Monthly dam survival values for subyearling chinook—Current Potential.
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-11

Adult chinook survival past each mainstem dam was assumed to 

average 93 percent under the Current Potential. Thus, total adult 

survival through mainstem river reaches is highly dependent on the 

number of dams each adult must pass. For example, adult chinook 

returning to the Salmon River would have to pass eight mainstem dams, 

and thus their overall survival rate would be 60 percent (0.988 = 60 

percent). In contrast, the survival rate for adults returning to the John 

Day River would be approximately 80 percent because they must 

migrate past only three mainstem dams.

Under the Historic Potential, adult chinook survival through the 

mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers was assumed to average 92 

percent. 

In-river Survival (Juveniles)

The survival rates used for modeling the Current Potential for 

subyearling and yearling juveniles migrating in-river through the 

hydroelectric complex were based on the range of values presented in 

recently published scientific literature.

Data presented by NMFS (2000a) show that from 1993-1999 yearling 

survival from Lower Granite Reservoir to the tailrace of Bonneville Dam 

ranged from about 31 percent to 51 percent. This equates to a project 

survival rate of approximately 86 percent to 92 percent. For modeling 

the Current Potential, we assumed that yearling survival past eight 

hydroelectric projects averages 36 percent (88 percent per project). 

For subyearling chinook we assumed that in-river survival from the 

head of Lower Granite Reservoir to the tailrace of Bonneville Dam was 

29 percent. This equates to a project survival rate of ~85 percent. The 

survival value only applies to active migrants. For inactive migrants, or 

life history trajectories that spend more time in the reservoirs (rearing 

stage), mortality increases in proportion to the time spent in the 

reservoirs. Thus, overall survival varies dependent on the trajectory 

examined. This approach is consistent with the data presented in a 

recent NMFS document (NMFS 2000a). NMFS scientists reported that 

subyearling survival varied dramatically (13-51 percent) in tests 

conducted in the Snake River from 1995-1999. However, these survival 

estimates included mortality from parr to the active migrant stage. 

The juvenile survival rates presented above formed the basis for model 

calibration with regard to overall survival through the mainstem 

Columbia and Snake Rivers. Because the dam survival values were 

fixed, the overall survival targets for both life histories required that 

juvenile survival rates through the reservoirs be adjusted as needed, 

which we achieved by modifying the habitat quality attributes for each 
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-12

reservoir during the key juvenile migration periods (see Juvenile 

Migration Timing). Resulting reservoir survival values for the Current 

Potential are presented in Table III.A.9 and Table III.A.10 for yearling 

and subyearling chinook, respectively. It should be noted that juvenile 

survival through the reservoirs is affected by the amount of time the 

juvenile spends in the reservoir and the benchmark survival value for 

the specific life stage (subyearling, yearling, etc.). 

We set the survival benchmarks for yearling and subyearling chinook at 

97.5 percent and 35 percent, respectively. These benchmark survival 

values were based on the assumption that yearlings require 14 days, and 

subyearling 56 days, to migrate from natal streams to the estuary under 

ideal environmental conditions. This equates to a daily survival rate of 

99.8 percent (97.51/14) for yearlings and 98.1 percent (0.351/56) for 

subyearlings.

For each reservoir, we calculated the daily survival rate for juvenile 

chinook using the following formulas:

Daily Yearling Survival Rate = (B1/14*RSR1/30) 

Daily Subyearling Survival = (B1/56*RSR1/30)

WhereB= benchmark survival rate 

RSR = Reservoir survival rate by month

Yearling and subyearling juvenile chinook survival rates used for 

modeling the Historic Potential are presented in Table III.A.11 and Table 

III.A.12. We calculated the survival values based on mainstem habitat 

quality, juvenile travel time through each reach, and the benchmark 

survival values used for each life stage. 

Combining the survival data in Table III.A.11 and Table III.A.12 results 

in the survival estimates presented in Table III.A.13 for yearling and 

subyearling chinook migrating from above either Lower Granite or 

Wells dam to the tailrace of Bonneville Dam.

Fish Transportation (Juveniles)

Survival associated with juvenile fish transportation is presented below 

for Current Potential only; juvenile transport does not occur under the 

Historic Potential.

The percent of the yearlings and subyearling collected at each of the four 

lower Snake River and McNary Dam facilities is presented in Table 

III.A14. The values in Table III.A.14 represent the percent of the juvenile 

population arriving at each facility that is collected and transported to 

the tailrace of Bonneville Dam.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.93 0.94 0.91 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.73 0.72 0.58 0.82 0.91 0.93

Little Goose 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.69 0.65 0.64 0.81 0.9 0.92

Lower Monumental 0.94 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.77 0.62 0.69 0.85 0.92 0.94

Ice Harbor 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.72 0.65 0.61 0.83 0.91 0.93

McNary 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.66 0.62 0.84 0.92 0.94

John Day 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.65 0.49 0.41 0.77 0.88 0.91

The Dalles 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 0.77 0.92 0.96 0.97

Bonneville 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.78 0.67 0.61 0.86 0.93 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.93 0.87 0.84 0.93 0.97 0.98

Rock Island 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.93 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.88 0.85 0.94 0.97 0.98

Priest Rapids 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.99

Wells 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.9 0.88 0.95 0.98 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.87 0.86 0.93 0.96 0.97

 Table III.A.9 Reservoir survival rates for yearling chinook- Current.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.85 0.83 0.56 0.72 0.68 0.83

Little Goose 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.83 0.79 0.59 0.7 0.66 0.82

Lower Monumental 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.77 0.66 0.76 0.72 0.86

Ice Harbor 0.87 0.88 0.9 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.85 0.79 0.59 0.74 0.7 0.84

McNary 0.83 0.87 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.79 0.57 0.73 0.69 0.84

John Day 0.8 0.79 0.7 0.81 0.85 0.84 0.68 0.51 0.29 0.55 0.58 0.73

The Dalles 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.82 0.69 0.83 0.84 0.9

Bonneville 0.87 0.86 0.8 0.87 0.9 0.91 0.79 0.69 0.5 0.69 0.71 0.82

Rocky Reach 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.9 0.85 0.9 0.91 0.94

Rock Island 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.97

Wanapum 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.92 0.94

Priest Rapids 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.97

Wells 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.95

Hanford Reach 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.87 0.8 0.59 0.7 0.65 0.81

Table III.A.10 Reservoir survival rates for subyearling chinook- Current Potential.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.81 0.76 0.96 0.98 0.98

Little Goose 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.9 0.75 0.84 0.96 0.98 0.98

Lower Monumental 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.79 0.89 0.97 0.98 0.98

Ice Harbor 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.9 0.74 0.81 0.97 0.98 0.98

McNary 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.91 0.74 0.76 0.95 0.97 0.97

John Day 0.94 0.95 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.86 0.63 0.58 0.91 0.94 0.94

The Dalles 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.86 0.85 0.97 0.98 0.98

Bonneville 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.76 0.73 0.94 0.97 0.97

Rocky Reach 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.93 0.91 0.97 0.98 0.98

Rock Island 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1 1 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 1 0.98 0.94 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.98

Priest Rapids 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1 1 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.99

Wells 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99 1 1 0.99 0.95 0.94 0.98 0.99 0.99

Table III.A.11 Reach survival values for yearling chinook—Historic Potential.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.84 0.82 0.91 0.93 0.94

Little Goose 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.81 0.85 0.9 0.92 0.93

Lower Monumental 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.84 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.95

Ice Harbor 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.82 0.85 0.92 0.93 0.94

McNary 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.82 0.84 0.92 0.93 0.94

John Day 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.78 0.69 0.77 0.78 0.79

The Dalles 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.93

Bonneville 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.86 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.87

Rocky Reach 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.94

Rock Island 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.99 1 1 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97

Wanapum 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94

Priest Rapids 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 1 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97

Wells 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95

Table III.A.12 Reach survival values for subyearling chinook—Historic Potential.
Yearling Apr May Jun July Aug

Lower Granite 0.85 0.91 0.91

Wells Dam 0.85 0.92 0.93

Subyearling Apr May Jun July Aug

Lower Granite 0.84 0.55 0.19

Wells Dam 0.77 0.49 0.14

Table III.A.13 Average monthly survival rates for subyearling chinook migrating from above Lower 

Granite and Wells Dams to the tailrace of Bonneville Dam—Historic Potential.
Yearling Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Lower Granite 39 39 39

Little Goose 61 61 61

Lower Monumental 47 47 47

McNary 0 0 5

Subyearling Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Lower Granite 30 35 35 35

Little Goose 25 30 30 30

Lower Monumental 26 31 31 31

McNary 11 31 31 62

Table III.A.14 The percent of yearling and subyearling chinook population transported at each collection 

facility by month for the Current Potential (Moderate).
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-13

We assumed 98 percent of the transported juveniles survive to the point 

of release (NMFS 2000b). We also assumed survival rates of transported 

Snake River yearling and subyearling chinook once released from the 

barges are 50 percent and 35 percent that of juveniles migrating in-river, 

respectively. We selected these values based on a review of recent 

literature estimating the differential post-Bonneville Dam survival for 

in-river and transported juvenile salmonids. The 50 percent value we 

used for yearling chinook was based on data presented in Bouwes et al. 

(1999). The subyearling value (35 percent) was based on data presented 

in PATH (1999). We increased the transport survival rate for 

subyearlings transported from McNary Dam to 60 percent to maintain a 

transport survival benefit for subyearling chinook migrating from the 

mid-Columbia River.

Marine

We present the information on the three components of the marine 

environment listed below:

1. Estuary

2. Nearshore

3. Ocean

The nearshore area was used to describe the early ocean life of juvenile 

salmonids (period from ocean entry to December 31). 

Because biological rules were not developed for these areas, we used 

data from the literature and professional expertise to determine juvenile 

survival in each component of the marine environment. These survival 

rates were applied to each of the 74 salmon stocks analyzed. 

For the estuary, biologists determined impacts to salmonids by 

developing ratings for a subset of the biological performance attributes. 

The ratings were based on USGS river flow data, river temperature 

information, the results of bird predation studies conducted near the 

mouth of the Columbia River (Roby et al. 1998) and marine mammal 

predation studies (reviewed in Park 1993). Ratings for juveniles and 

adults are summarized in Table III.A.15a, Table III.A.15b, and Table 

III.A.15c.

Chinook ocean survival rates used for modeling purposes beginning 

with the first full year in the ocean were the same as those used by the 

Pacific Salmon Commission Chinook Technical Committee. The 

derivation of these rates is undocumented but are used by the CTC for 

chinook cohort analysis, thus are consistent with their ocean modeling 



Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-14

exercises. The rates are summarized by age (shown are ages for ocean 

type life history) in Table III.A.16. 

We developed the nearshore/early marine survival rates based on the 

unexplained residual from known estuary and marine survival rates of 

the expected SAR rates for natural Columbia River chinook. Subyearling 

and yearling early marine rates were 55 percent and 40 percent, 

respectively.

Coarse Screening of Environmental Attributes

As noted previously, we derived the environmental attributes from 

easily obtainable data for each of the five provinces. The quality of these 

data varied by attribute, 6-HUC, and province; and it was determined 

early in the process that the quality was sufficient for conducting an 

analysis at the basin and province scales only. To help improve the 

quality of this data set, fisheries biologists familiar with the stream 

habitat present in each province reviewed a subset of the derived 

environmental attribute data set. Specific environmental attributes

reviewed included:

1. Fine Sediment

2. Bed Scour

3. Low Flow

4. Riparian Function 

5. Maximum Temperature

We selected these attributes for review based on past EDT analyses, 

where ratings for these attributes have shown a relatively large effect on 

salmon survival and resulting salmon performance. The biologists 

reviewed each of the five attributes for the 822 6-HUCs that are used by 

chinook salmon. Each biologist examined the data set and made changes 

to the attributes based on available data and professional opinion. We 

incorporated all of the changes in the environmental attributes proposed 

by the review biologists into the final analysis; they are, therefore, 

reflected in the modeling results.
Age Ocean Survival

2 0.6

3 0.7

4 0.8

5 0.9

Table III.A.16 Ocean survival rate by age class (chinook).
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-15

Development of Hatchery Attributes

The EDT approach addresses the hatchery environment and hatchery 

reared populations the same way it addresses natural habitat and wild 

populations. Survival conditions in the hatchery environment are 

captured in the form of biological performance attributes, and hatchery 

populations are analyzed based upon the hatchery and natural 

environments available to them. Obtaining input data from individual 

hatchery facilities was beyond the scope of this study and we, therefore, 

focused on the performance of hatchery populations after their release. 

Survival of Hatchery Fish 

Where studies of direct comparisons between hatchery and natural 

populations in the natural environment are sparse, it is generally 

assumed that post release survival of hatchery fish is less than that for 

wild fish over the same life stages. This difference can be attributed to 

both first generation (non-genetic) and trans-generation (genetic) factors. 

Our assumptions here relied largely on the approach and conclusions 

presented in RASP (1992). In Table III.A.17, the genetic and non-genetic 

factors have been combined into one survival multiplier for post release 

survival. In the population analysis, we apply this additional rate of 

mortality from the time of release until the end of the first year in the 

ocean.

Based on experimental results with new culture practices intended to 

improve survival of hatchery fish we assumed that future 

supplementation programs would achieve somewhat higher survival.

Effects of Hatchery Fish on Wild Populations 

In the EDT analysis, hatchery fish can affect wild/natural populations 

through ecological or genetic interactions. Ecological interactions 

involve competition for food and space, predation (directly or indirectly 

by affecting behavior of predators), and ecological function. Genetic 

interactions result from hatchery fish interbreeding with wild fish in the 

natural environment.

We estimated competition effects due to hatchery fish based on 

estimated densities of hatchery juveniles by stream reach over time and 

on maximum densities drawn from the literature. We computed the 

density of hatchery fish from time and rate of release of hatchery fish at 

each facility and estimated rates of downstream movement of those fish. 

Using the Beverton-Holt survival function and benchmark maximum 

density parameters, we estimated the survival impacts on wild fish for 

every stream reach and time period. We did not include direct and 

indirect effects of predation in this analysis. We did include ecological 
> 50% 20-50% 10-20% <10%

Moderate

Conventional 

hatchery 75% 83% 93% 100% 25%

Supplementation 

hatchery 82% 88% 95% 100% 30%

Table III.A.17 Relative survival parameters for hatchery produced fish and for natural populations influenced by hatchery fish 

(Moderate worldview).

Parameter 2: Post-release 

survival of hatchery fish Worldview Culture Method

Parameter 1: Multiplier on natural production based on presence of 

hatchery fish

Percent hatchery fish spawning with naturally produced fish
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-16

effects due to nutrient enhancement from carcasses (positive increase in 

survival) and due to pathogens associated with hatchery programs as 

direct, site-specific inputs.

Hatchery fish access natural spawning grounds inadvertently through 

straying or as a result of supplementation with the intent to augment 

natural spawning. We relied on RASP (1992) for estimates of the 

survival (fitness) effect on natural populations of hatchery introgression 

as a function of the hatchery-natural composition of the spawning 

population (see Table III.A.17). In order to calculate the ratio of hatchery 

to wild and compute the demographic contribution of hatchery 

spawners to the subsequent generation, we somewhat arbitrarily 

assumed that the total escapement (hatchery plus natural) to the 

spawning grounds would not exceed the natural spawner capacity.

Hatchery Production

The total number of hatchery fish by species released in each alternative 

and condition is presented in Table III.A.18a, Table III.A.18b, and Table 

III.A.18c.

Supplementation

The future alternatives all assume that some of the returning hatchery 

fish will spawn with naturally produced fish in the wild (Figure III.A.3).

Development of Harvest Attributes

We obtained the data used in this analysis to determine the rate and 

location of adult harvest from the following sources:

• Fisheries Regulatory Assessment Model (FRAM)

• Chinook Technical Committee, Pacific Salmon Commission

• Status Report, Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1938-1997. 

WDFW/ODFW

• 1996 All Species Review, Columbia River Fish Management Plan. US 

V. Oregon, Technical Advisory Committee, 1997.

• Biological Assessment, Technical Advisory Committee. 1998

For this analysis, we defined the harvest rate base period to be 1992-1996 

developed harvest rates for both ocean and mainstem Columbia River 

fisheries (Zones 1-6). We based the harvest rates used in this analysis on 

published rates for ten Columbia River Harvest indicator stocks (Table 

III.A.18a, Table III.A.18b, and Table III.A.18c). The data presented in 

Table III.A.19 show the specific indicator stock that we used in setting 




Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-17

harvest rates for each of the 74 fish populations examined in this 

analysis. The analysis does not include estimates of sport or commercial 

harvest in the tributaries. Thus, the adult run sizes reported for each 

province are based on the number of fish entering each tributary.

Population Structure

The EDT analytical model is based on the analysis of life history 

pathways through the environment. The analytical model includes a 

Trajectory Generator module that generates multiple pathways, referred 

to as trajectories, through space and time. Each trajectory may vary in the 

duration, rate of travel, and timing of life stages (Figure III.A.4).

We use the term life history pattern to mean a collection of similar 

trajectories (Figure III.A.5). These trajectories share life history 

behaviors, such as ocean entry timing (e.g., age at ocean entry or 

seasonal timing) or migration pattern during freshwater residence (e.g., 

freshwater residence in natal stream or redistribution to non-natal 

stream for “overwintering”).

Finally, the uppermost level of organization of biological performance is 

the population. Trajectories are grouped into loosely defined 

populations based on common geographic area and common life history 

pattern (i.e., spring chinook in the Upper Yakima basin). We describe 

populations based on available documentation for a basin (status 

reports, harvest management units, etc).

General Chinook Life Histories

Chinook salmon exhibit a wide variety of life history patterns (Reimers 

1971; reviewed by Healey 1991). At the most basic level, chinook salmon 

life histories are defined by stream type and ocean type behavioral patterns 

(Healey 1991; first described in Gilbert 1913). Stream type chinook 

remain in freshwater for one year before migrating to sea, which is 

typical of northern populations and headwater tributaries of southern 

rivers. Ocean type chinook migrate to sea during their first year of life, 

which is more common in coastal streams and rivers south of 56°N. 

Taylor (1990a) hypothesized that age of seaward migration (stream vs. 

ocean type) is environmentally modulated (temperature and 

photoperiod) and shows an inheritable component to differences in 

growth rate and agonistic behavior between stream and ocean type 

chinook (Taylor, 1990b). Clarke et al. (1992) demonstrated an inheritable 

response to photoperiod and resulting saltwater tolerance. We conclude 

that, at the population level, the proportion of stream and ocean type life 

history patterns should be specified in the EDT model; the environment 
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Snake 37,760 39,610 48,407 89,043 107,245 100,156 50,913 43,643 22,655 24,054 20,928 32,456

Columbia 207,900 198,279 154,250 228,089 287,186 290,140 195,951 163,881 99,886 109,622 109,304 155,839

Mid-Col 153,594 139,802 87,457 124,301 171,988 177,453 135,133 114,599 71,728 79,317 77,075 107,495

Table III.A.4 Average monthly flows used in modeling the Current Potential.

Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-18

as described in the model is insufficient to define the frequency of these 

types.

Additional variation within these life history types is common for 

chinook. Reimers (1971) described four patterns for ocean type chinook 

in the Sixes River. Healey (1991) expanded on the general life history 

types by recognizing a tactical component to the life history model, 

defining additional variation within these types as adaptations to 

uncertainties in juvenile survival and productivity among habitat types. 

Under this hypothesis, expression of multiple behavioral patterns is a 

function of the environment. Genetically identical ocean type 

populations may have a different suite of expressed life history patterns 

depending upon the environment they encounter. 

The EDT analysis includes variation in life history patterns within a life 

history type in our analysis of chinook performance. We hypothesize 

that restoration of lost life history patterns is largely a function of 

reestablishing connectivity of the habitat, where fragmentation of the 

habitat may be the result of physical (e.g., dams) or biological (e.g., 

temperature affected) constraints on migration or utilization. 

Application to the Columbia River

Application of variation in life history patterns within the EDT analytical 

model is largely a function of identifying life stage durations, migration 

travel speeds, and timing windows. This section addresses the input 

parameters used in the EDT model to define a set of chinook patterns. 

Parameters are intended to be broad so that a pattern can be applied to 

multiple locations within a basin (e.g., Hanford Reach or Snake River fall 

chinook populations). 

When a range of input values is applied, the Trajectory Generator 

module randomly selects a value within the range. Distribution within 

the range is assumed to be uniform for life stage duration and timing 

windows. Thus, when river entry timing is said to extend from March to 

May, trajectories will be generated across all dates. Migration rates 

(travel speed) use a non-uniform distribution. We assume that a majority 

(~75 percent) of the trajectories will travel in the lower 25 percent of the 

range (Figure III.A.6).

Stream Type Patterns

The suite of available patterns presented in the previous section can be 

summarized as differences in duration and migration speeds, at key life 

stages. For example, fry colonization (2-week period immediately 

following emergence) can occur very quickly and with movement 

downstream of less than 10 meters. In contrast, the life stage may extend

Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-19

beyond two weeks (but less than 3 1⁄2 weeks), and fry may colonize 

locations several kilometers downstream of emergence. 

We included four basic patterns for generating stream type trajectories 

(Figure III.A.7):

• Resident—remain in natal stream throughout freshwater residence.

• Spring Dispersal—dispersal to downstream habitat during fry 

colonization followed by summer and winter rearing at the same 

location.

• Fall Redistribution—remain in natal stream through summer 

followed by downstream redistribution in fall; movement can vary 

from <1 kilometer to ~10 kilometers).

• Spring-Fall Dispersal—dispersal to downstream habitat during fry 

colonization; summer rearing followed by downstream 

redistribution in fall) (Figure III.A.7).

Ocean Type Patterns

The range of patterns reviewed from the Sixes River (Reimers 1971) can 

be summarized as differences in spring and early summer rearing (the 

range is from high rate of movement to a resident type pattern of 

summer rearing). Differences in estuarine residence can be described as 

rate of travel within this habitat type. Dispersal during fry colonization 

is assumed to occur for all ocean type patterns (Figure III.A.7). 

The EDT analysis was limited to populations upstream of Bonneville 

Dam. The distance of these populations from the estuary lead us to 

conclude that rearing of subyearling chinook was largely riverine; time 

spent in the estuary was constrained to 2-4 weeks. Reimers (1971) 

described patterns of extended estuarine rearing (6-10 weeks), which are 

more common in coastal rivers. The exception was subyearling chinook 

collected early in the transportation system; these trajectories were 

constrained to spend a longer period of time (4-6 weeks) in the lower 

river-estuary. 

Chinook Population Descriptions

We included 66 chinook populations in the analysis. Several of these 

existed only in the historic conditions as they are blocked by dams or 

inundated by reservoirs. Populations were not described for upstream of 

Chief Joseph or Hells Canyon. Assumptions of juvenile age (life history 

type), adult river timing, and spawning timing differed among 

populations. Each population and key assumptions are described in 

Table III.A.20.

Population Name Ecoregion Subbasin Harvest Indicator Stock

Asotin River Spr Chin BLUE_MOUNTAIN Asotin Spring Chinook

Grande Ronde R Spr Chin BLUE_MOUNTAIN Grande Ronde Spring Chinook

Grande Ronde Su/Fa BLUE_MOUNTAIN Grande Ronde Columbia Summer Chinook

Imnaha River Spr Chin BLUE_MOUNTAIN Imnaha Spring Chinook

Snk R-Clearwater to Hells BLUE_MOUNTAIN Snake, Hells Canyon Snake Fall Chin

Misc Trib Chf J-Wan Su/Fa COLUMBIA_CASCADE Columbia, Upper Mid Columbia Summer Chinook

Col R-Ch Joe to Wan Su/Fa COLUMBIA_CASCADE Columbia, Upper Mid Columbia Summer Chinook

Entiat River Spr Chin COLUMBIA_CASCADE Entiat Spring Chinook

Entiat River Su/Fa COLUMBIA_CASCADE Entiat Columbia Summer Chinook

Chelan River Su/Fa COLUMBIA_CASCADE Lake Chelan Columbia Summer Chinook

Methow River Spr Chin COLUMBIA_CASCADE Methow Spring Chinook

Methow River Su/Fa COLUMBIA_CASCADE Methow Columbia Summer Chinook

Okanagan River Su/Fa COLUMBIA_CASCADE Okanogan / Similkameen Columbia Summer Chinook

Wenatchee River Spr Chin COLUMBIA_CASCADE Wenatchee Spring Chinook

Wenatchee R Su/Fa COLUMBIA_CASCADE Wenatchee Columbia Summer Chinook

Big White Salmon COLUMBIA_GORGE Big White Salmon Spring Chinook

Col R-Dalles to Bonnev COLUMBIA_GORGE Columbia, Gorge Columbia URB

Misc Tribs Bonnev Pool COLUMBIA_GORGE Columbia, Gorge Oregon Tule

Hood River COLUMBIA_GORGE Hood Spring Chinook

Hood River COLUMBIA_GORGE Hood Oregon Tule

Klickitat River COLUMBIA_GORGE Klickitat Spring Chinook

Klickitat River Fall COLUMBIA_GORGE Klickitat Columbia URB

Wind River COLUMBIA_GORGE Wind Spring Chinook

Col R-J Day to Dalles COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Columbia, Lower Mid Columbia URB

Misc Tribs Dalles Pool COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Columbia, Lower Mid Oregon Tule

Misc Tribs JnDay/McNar Pl COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Columbia, Lower Mid Columbia URB

Col R- Wanap to PR Fall COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Columbia, Lower Mid Columbia URB

Col R-Hanford Reach Fall COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Columbia, Lower Mid Columbia URB

Col R-McNary to J Day COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Columbia, Lower Mid Columbia URB

Misc Tribs Hanford Rch COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Columbia, Lower Mid Columbia URB

Crab Cr Fall Chin COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Crab Columbia URB

Crooked R COLUMBIA_PLATEAU DESCHUTES Spring Chinook

Warm Springs COLUMBIA_PLATEAU DESCHUTES Spring Chinook

Squaw Creek COLUMBIA_PLATEAU DESCHUTES Spring Chinook

Metolius River COLUMBIA_PLATEAU DESCHUTES Spring Chinook

Ochoco River COLUMBIA_PLATEAU DESCHUTES Spring Chinook

Crooked River Su/Fa COLUMBIA_PLATEAU DESCHUTES Columbia Summer Chinook

Lower Deschutes R Su/Fa COLUMBIA_PLATEAU DESCHUTES Columbia Summer Chinook

Upper Deschutes Su/Fa COLUMBIA_PLATEAU DESCHUTES Columbia Summer Chinook

John Day abv SF COLUMBIA_PLATEAU John Day Spring Chinook

***NF John Day COLUMBIA_PLATEAU John Day Spring Chinook

Table III.A.20 Indicator stock used for determining harvest rates for each of the 74 fish populations modeled.
MF John Day River COLUMBIA_PLATEAU John Day Spring Chinook

John Day Su/Fa COLUMBIA_PLATEAU John Day Columbia Summer Chinook

Snk R-Mouth to Clearwater COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Snake, Mainstem Snake Fall Chin

Tucannon River Spr Chin COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Tucannon Spring Chinook

Tucannon River COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Tucannon Snake Fall Chin

Umatilla River COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Umatilla Spring Chinook

Umatilla River COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Umatilla Columbia URB

Walla Walla River COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Walla Walla Spring Chinook

Touchet River COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Walla Walla Spring Chinook

Walla-Walla River Fall Ch COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Walla Walla Columbia URB

Upper Yakima Spr Chin COLUMBIA_PLATEAU YAKIMA Spring Chinook

Naches River Spr Chin COLUMBIA_PLATEAU YAKIMA Spring Chinook

Lower Yakima Tribs Spr Ch COLUMBIA_PLATEAU YAKIMA Spring Chinook

Lower Yakima River Fall COLUMBIA_PLATEAU YAKIMA Columbia URB

Toppenish R Fall COLUMBIA_PLATEAU YAKIMA Columbia URB

NF Clearwater MOUNTAIN_SNAKE CLEARWATER Spring Chinook

MF Clearwater R MOUNTAIN_SNAKE CLEARWATER Spring Chinook

SF Clearwater R MOUNTAIN_SNAKE CLEARWATER Spring Chinook

Selway River MOUNTAIN_SNAKE CLEARWATER Spring Chinook

Lochsa River MOUNTAIN_SNAKE CLEARWATER Spring Chinook

Lower Clearwater R Summer MOUNTAIN_SNAKE CLEARWATER Columbia Summer Chinook

Headwater Salmon R Spr Ch MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Spring Chinook

Little Salmon R MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Spring Chinook

MF Salmon R MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Spring Chinook

Lemhi River MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Spring Chinook

Upper Salmon River MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Spring Chinook

Little Salmon R Summer MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Columbia Summer Chinook

SF Salmon R Summer MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Columbia Summer Chinook

Lower Salmon R Summer MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Columbia Summer Chinook

MF Salmon R Summer MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Columbia Summer Chinook

Pahsimeroi River Summer MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Columbia Summer Chinook

Upper Salmon River Summer MOUNTAIN_SNAKE SALMON Columbia Summer Chinook

Table III.A.20 Indicator stock used for determining harvest rates for each of the 74 fish populations modeled.
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-20

Analysis Method

The modeling component of EDT was used to produce estimates of 

chinook productivity, capacity, and diversity for both the Historic 

Potential and Current Potential (Lestelle et al., 1996). A more detailed 

description of the EDT Model including formulas, assumptions, and 

inherent workings is included in Appendix A.

Uncertainty and World View Assumptions

The major assumptions used in modeling the three worldviews 

(Technology Pessimistic, Moderate, and Technology Optimistic) are 

shown in Table III.A.21 and Table III.A.22 below. Model runs based on 

these worldviews were completed for the Historic and Current 

Potentials, as well as for Alternatives 2, 5, and 6. A more detailed 

discussion of the assumptions used for the Technology Pessimistic and 

Technology Optimistic worldviews is offered below. Assumptions used 

under the Moderate scenario are included in the tables for reader 

convenience. The Moderate assumptions were discussed earlier in this 

section and are, therefore, not repeated here. Dam survivals by 

Alternative and worldview are shown in Appendix E.

World View Assumptions

Technology Pessimistic

The Technology Pessimistic worldview will be discussed for In-river 

Transport Survival, Hatchery Fish Parameters, Habitat, and Marine.

In-river and Transport Survival 

The in-river and transport survival rates used for modeling subyearling 

performance were based on data developed by PATH and NMFS for fall 

chinook (PATH 1999, NMFS 2000b). Based on our review of these 

analyses, we set typical subyearling in-river and transport survival for 

Snake River stocks at 27 percent and nine percent, respectively. 

Transport survival at McNary Dam was set at 40 percent in order to 

more closely match the expected in-river survival rate for both 

subyearlings and yearlings that migrate from this facility to the tailrace 

of Bonneville Dam. Under the Technology Pessimistic worldview, it is 

assumed that in-river survival is at the low end of recent estimates and 

that transport is ineffective.
% Ocean 

Type

% Stream 

Type

Adult River 

Entry

Spawn 

Timing

Wind Wind River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Big White 

Salmon Big White Salmon 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Klickitat Upper Klickitat River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Hood Upper Hood River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Klickitat Klickitat River below hatchery 100% 0% Aug – Sept Oct – Nov

Hood Hood River below forks 100% 0% Aug – Sept Oct – Nov

Warm Springs Warm Spring R (Deschutes) 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Squaw Squaw Cr. (Deschutes) 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Crooked Crooked R. abv Ochoco (Deschutes) 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Ochoco Ochoco R. (Deschutes) 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Metolius Metolius R. (Deschutes) 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

N.F. John Day N.F. John Day River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

M.F. John Day M.F. John Day River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

John Day John Day R. abv S.F. 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Umatilla Upper Umatilla River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Walla Walla Up Walla Walla R. 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Tucannon Upper Tucannon R. 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Touchet Touchet River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Lower Yakima Tribs. Lower Yakima (Satus-Logy) 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Upper Yakima Yakima R. & tribs. abv Naches 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Naches Naches River (Yakima) 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Lower Deschutes Deschutes R. below Pelton-Round Butte 90% 10% June – Aug Oct

Upper 

Deschutes Deschutes River abv Pelton-Round Butte 25% 75% June – Aug Oct

Lower Crooked Crooked R below Ochoco 25% 75% June – Aug Oct

John Day John Day R. mainstem and Tribs below S.F. 50% 50% June – Aug Oct

John Day Pool Columbia R: John Day – McNary 100% 0% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

McNary Pool - 

Hanford Columbia R: McNary – Priest Rapids 95% 5% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

Priest Rapids 

Pool Columbia R: Priest Rapids – Wanapum 95% 5% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

Lower Snake Snake R: Mouth to Clearwater River 95% 5% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

Umatilla Lower Umatilla River 95% 5% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

Walla Walla Lower Walla Walla River 95% 5% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

Tucannon Lower Tucannon River 95% 5% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

Yakima Tribs Lower Yakima tribs (Toppenish) 95% 5% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

Lower Yakima Yakima River below Naches 95% 5% Aug – Sept Oct - Nov

Table III.A.21 Chinook population descriptions.

Life History Assumptions

Columbia Gorge

Columbia Plateau Spring Chinook Fall Chinook Spring Chinook Summer/Fall Chinook Fall Chinook

Species Population Name Geographic Area
Wenatchee Wenatchee River abv Icicle Cr 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Entiat Upper Entiat River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Methow Upper Methow River 0% 100% Apr – May Sept

Columbia R Columbia R: Wanapum to Chief Joseph 75% 25% June – Aug Oct

Wenatchee Lower Wenatchee R 75% 25% June – Aug Oct

Entiat Lower Entiat River 75% 25% June – Aug Oct

Methow Lower Methow River 75% 25% June – Aug Oct

Chelan Chelan R. below lake 75% 25% June – Aug Oct

Okanogan Okanogan & Similkameen 75% 25% June – Aug Oct

Asotin Asotin River 0% 100% Apr - May Sept

Grande Ronde Grande Ronde abv Wallowa 0% 100% Apr - May Sept

Imnaha Imnaha River 0% 100% Apr - May Sept

Sum/Fall 

ChinookGrande Ronde Lower Grande Ronde mainstem and tribs 50% 50% June - Aug Oct

Fall 

Chinook

Snake River Snake R: Clearwater to Hells Canyon 95% 5% Aug - Sept Oct – Nov

MF Clearwater M.F. Clearwater mainstem & tribs 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

SF Clearwater S.F. Clearwater River 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

Selway Selway River (Clearwater) 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

Lochsa Lochsa River (Clearwater) 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

NF Clearwater NF Clearwater abv Dworshak 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

Little Salmon Upper Little Salmon R. & tribs 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

MF Salmon Upper M.F. Salmon R. & tribs 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

Lemhi Lemhi River (Salmon) 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

SF Salmon Upper SF Salmon & tribs (incl E.F.) 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

Upper Salmon E.F. Salmon R to Yankee Fork 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

Headwaters 

Salmon Salmon River abv Yankee Fork 0% 100% Apr - May Aug - Sept

Lower 

Clearwater Clearwater River & tribs below M.F. 10% 90% June - July Sept

Lower Salmon Salmon R mainstem & tribs below Lemhi 10% 90% June - July Sept

Little Salmon Lower Little Salmon R 10% 90% June - July Sept

SF Salmon S.F Salmon River below E.F. 10% 90% June - July Sept

MF Salmon Lower M.F. Salmon River 10% 90% June - July Sept

Pahsimeroi Pahsimeroi River (Salmon) 10% 90% June - July Sept

Upper Salmon Salmon River mainstem (Lemhi to E.F.) 10% 90% June - July Sept

Mountain Snake

Columbia Cascade

Table III.A.21 Chinook population descriptions. Spring Chinook Summer/Fall Chinook Spring Chinook Spring Chinook Summer Chinook

Blue Mountain
In-river Transport

Technology Pessimistic 25 25 40

Moderate 36 50 50

Technology Optimistic 51 80 80

In-river Transport

Technology Pessimistic 27 9 40

Moderate 29 35 60

Technology Optimistic 35 60 80

Table III.A.22 Yearling and subyearling survival rate assumptions for both the in-river and transport migration 

paths.

 Yearling Chinook 

Subyearling Chinook

%Survival Snake % Transport Survival (Columbia - McNary)

%Survival Snake

Worldview

% Transport Survival (Columbia –McNary)

Worldview
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-21

Hatchery Fish Parameters

The post-release survival rate of hatchery fish under this worldview was 

set at 10 percent and 15 percent that of naturally produced fish for 

juveniles reared under conventional and supplementation type facilities, 

respectively. It was also assumed that as hatchery fish abundance 

increases on the spawning grounds, wild fish fitness decreases (Table 

III.A.22). The assumption under the Technology Pessimistic worldview 

being that hatchery fish have low survival and negatively affect the 

fitness of wild stocks.

Habitat

The biological rules that translate environmental attributes into survival 

parameters produce an estimate of relative productivity (based on 

Moderate assumptions) for each 6-HUC, for each month, and for each 

life stage. The assumed range of uncertainty of this estimate is shown in 

Figure III.A.8. The Technology Pessimistic worldview, assumes the 

lower values in this range, reflecting a greater sensitivity to habitat 

conditions that deviate from the optimal for each life stage.

Marine

Estuary survival rates for juvenile chinook were altered as described 

under the habitat section above.

The nearshore survival values used for modeling subyearling and 

yearling survival through this area were increased to 86 percent and 74 

percent, respectively. Nearshore survival rates were changed to increase 

the number of adults returning to the Columbia River under the 

Technology Pessimistic worldview so that they were similar to those 

produced under the Moderate and Technology Optimistic worldviews. 

This step was needed to meet the assumption that each of the 

worldviews produces similar numbers of fish under the Current 

Potential. Therefore, the worldviews agree on how many fish are being 

produced, but disagree on why (i.e., inherent assumptions vary by 

worldview). In the Technology Pessimistic worldview, it is assumed that 

nearshore ocean conditions have less an effect on adult run sizes than 

factors such as hydro development and habitat degradation.

Ocean survival rates used for modeling this worldview were identical to 

those described for the Moderate worldview.

Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-22

Technology Optimistic

The Technology Optimistic worldview will be discussed for In-River 

and Transport Survival, Hatchery Fish Parameters, Hatchery, and 

Marine.

In-river and Transport Survival

The yearling in-river and transport survival values used for modeling 

the Technology Optimistic worldview was obtained from values 

developed by the NMFS (NMFS 2000b). NMFS scientists reported that 

in-river survival for yearling chinook migrating from the Lower Granite 

Reservoir to the tailrace of Bonneville Dam averaged approximately 51 

percent for migration years 1997 to 1999. NMFS also reported that the 

“differential post-Bonneville Dam survival”, or so-called D-value, 

ranged from about 78 percent to 83 percent. In this worldview it was 

assumed that the post-release survival rate of transported yearling 

chinook is 80 percent.

Subyearling chinook in-river and transport survival rates were set for 

Snake River stocks at 35 percent and 60 percent, respectively. These 

values were deemed to represent the high end of recent estimates for 

these parameters. The McNary transport survival rate was set at 80 

percent to match the values used for yearling chinook and to ensure a 

transport survival benefit for all stocks. 

Hatchery Fish Parameters

Under the Technology Optimistic worldview, the survival rates for 

hatchery fish reared using conventional or supplementation type rearing 

practices were set at 50 percent and 60 percent. The Technology 

Optimistic worldview also assumes that hatchery fish impacts to wild 

populations are less severe than assumed under the Moderate 

worldview.

Habitat

The Technology Optimistic worldview, assumes the higher values in this 

range, reflecting a lesser sensitivity to habitat conditions that deviate 

from the optimal for each life stage (Figure III.A.8).

Marine

Estuary survival rates for juvenile chinook were altered as described 

under the habitat section above.
Section III.A — Methods, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.A-23

The nearshore survival values used for modeling subyearling and 

yearling survival through this area were reduced to 35 percent and 20 

percent, respectively. Nearshore survival rates were lowered to decrease 

the number of adults returning to the Columbia River under the 

Technology Optimistic worldview so that they were similar to those 

produced under the Moderate and Technology Pessimistic worldviews. 

This step was needed to meet the assumption that each of the

worldviews produces similar numbers of fish under the Current 

Potential. Thus, the worldviews agree on how many fish are being 

produced, but disagree on why (i.e., inherent assumptions vary by 

worldview). A major assumption under the Technology Optimistic

worldview is that poor nearshore ocean conditions are a major factor 

responsible for the low adult returns observed in recent years.

Ocean survival rates were not changed under this worldview and are 

therefore the same as those used for modeling the Moderate worldview.

Data Quality

The amount of effort required to accurately rate habitat quality for over 

259,000 miles of terrestrial and aquatic habitat is indeed daunting. The 

task becomes even more difficult given that the data needed to rate all 45 

of the environmental attributes do not exist for some areas, are of poor 

quality in others, were collected over varying time frames, and 

assembled by multiple agencies using various methodologies. In short, 

there is considerable uncertainty in the quality of the data used in this 

analysis. 

This problem was recognized at the start of the project but after 

reviewing the available data, we deemed it sufficient for conducting an 

analysis at the basin and province levels. However, data resolution is 

insufficient to draw inferences about habitat and salmon performance at 

the subbasin, watershed or reach level. The Council envisions that data 

quality problems will be corrected to the extent possible during the 

assessment phase of the Council’s program.

The data and analysis are sufficient to achieve the goal of providing 

planners and biologists the tools needed to identify, analyze, and 

prioritize actions to recover salmonid populations in their respective 

basins. Work products or tools resulting from this process include; 1) a 

future vision for the basin, 2) a set of Scientific Principles to guide 

recovery actions, 3) a Conceptual Framework, 4) analysis methodology, 

and 5) a draft data set for review and refinement for each subbasin of 

interest in the Columbia River Basin. 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-1

METHODS - WILDLIFE SPECIES

This section of the Methods addresses wildlife; it is organized as follows:

Introduction

Overview of Information Used

Determining Wildlife Species Information

Determining the Wildlife-Habitat Information

Natural History of Selected Species

Major Assumptions

Basin-wide Wildlife Habitat Type Maps

Structural Conditions

Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife Species

Validation Steps

Introduction

To analyze wildlife at the broad scale of the entire Columbia River Basin 

in the U.S., we used “coarse-grain” information on environmental 

conditions. Analyses assess data and information on occurrence and 

change in overall wildlife habitat types for each 6th field HUC 

(subwatershed), summarized to larger areas of provinces and to the 

Columbia Basin as a whole; this is what constitutes “coarse-grain 

information.” Results of these wildlife analyses should be viewed most 

appropriately at scales of provinces and the entire basin, as defined in the 

Fish and Wildlife Program Scientific Foundation (Appendix L). Wildlife 

analyses herein provide broad distributional patterns of habitats, potential 

species occurrence, and ecological functions.

Subsequent stages of the Framework analysis will summarize results from 

the 6-HUC to the subbasin level and then to the province and basin. 

Accuracy at levels finer than the province level will entail using finergrain information on the distribution and changes in structural conditions 

and specific substrates and other influential conditions (key 

environmental correlates) within each wildlife habitat type and within 

each subwatershed. We did not have that information available for the 

current analyses.
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-2

Our analysis provides three “snapshots” of historic, current, and future 

habitat conditions. Historic conditions (in places referred to as Historic 

Potential) refers to conditions in the absence of non-native human 

influence, projecting back in time, approximating conditions that may 

have generally occurred during the early 19th century. Maps of historic 

conditions should be viewed as general patterns and not as depicting 

specific conditions within watersheds. Current condition (in places also 

referred to as Current Potential) is estimated using data on vegetation, 

which we interpreted as wildlife habitat, collected within the last ten years 

(i.e., 1995-2000). Data on current vegetation conditions, in most cases, has 

not undergone formal validation but is based on spectral classification of 

satellite imagery that has been related to land use/land cover types, that 

in turn have been determined from point or field locations. Future 

conditions refers to wildlife habitats that would stabilize over the long 

term, say on the order of 50-100 years, under the management strategies 

specified under each of the three planning alternatives we analyzed. L. 

Vail (Appendix L) developed a screening procedure to estimate the acres 

of wildlife habitat types for seven alternatives, three of which are used in 

this analysis. This procedure estimated the degree that current wildlife 

habitat types would shift back towards the historic wildlife habitat types 

for a specific alternative. Each alternative was composed of a set of 

strategies. The effectiveness and intensity of each strategy, as defined by 

McConnaha, et al. (2000), were considered in combination with the land 

use and land ownership for each 6-HUC. Spatial information was not 

considered at a spatial scale finer than the 6-HUC. This approach was 

consistent with the other elements of the Multi-Species Framework 

Project. It implies that no information about adjacency of habitat types 

and land ownership is known. For instance, we don’t know if forest 

represents riparian or non-riparian regions. In our assessment, there is 

one historic condition, one current condition, and three alternative future 

conditions (one future condition for each of the three alternatives 

analyzed in this report).

Comparing historic to current conditions provides some understanding of 

how habitats have changed from recent land use practices. This provides 

a baseline by which to compare current to future conditions under each of 

the three planning alternatives we analyzed. Future potential conditions 

represent a range of possible future changes and whether alternatives are 

moving wildlife habitat quality and quantity toward or away from historic 

habitat conditions. This process of comparing alternative performance to 

current and historic performance for wildlife is similar in concept to the 

fish analysis process but several details differ:

The fish analysis uses historic, current and future conditions to set 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-3

biological objectives for specific fish habitat attributes (usually fine-scale 

substrates, which we refer to as key environmental correlates, or KECs). 

Because of the broad scale addressed, the wildlife analysis is not based on 

key environmental correlates but rather on more general wildlife habitat 

capacity summarized at the scale of the entire basin. Since the proposed 

terrestrial wildlife habitat changes are relatively small in area compared to 

the area of the whole basin, any change in the percentage of wildlife 

habitats (that is, conversion of one wildlife habitat type to another type) is 

very small (e.g., 0.01 percent), and not particularly useful for setting 

biological objectives at a basin scale. When fine-scale KEC data are 

available within subbasins, it will be more appropriate to set local 

biological objectives for wildlife.

The fish EDT method assesses three demographic components of fish 

species performance: survival, capacity and life history diversity. These 

components can be combined and expressed in terms of fish population 

density for any of the historical, current or future conditions. Wildlife 

performance is expressed as habitat capacity. Survival, life history 

diversity and density of wildlife are not explicitly assessed at the basin 

level.

Fish performance expressed as density was estimated using a BevertonHolt model, which includes both density-independent and densitydependent components. The density-dependent component of EDT is 

based on habitat quality times area. When habitat quality is less than 

optimal due to one or more management activities (i.e., mining), the 

reduction of habitat quality is used to reduce population density 

estimates. As such, optimal habitat conditions for a particular area are 

reduced as a function of the type, the intensity and the effectiveness of 

management activities. The actual population density response may or 

may not meet the model projections due to a variety of factors that are not 

related to habitat (e.g., hunting and toxics). Hence modeled conditions are 

referred to as potential: historic potential, current potential, and future 

potential. Wildlife performance, based on habitat capacity, does not 

include an estimator of density but does include an estimator of habitat 

quality based on the intensity and effectiveness of a management activity 

(i.e., collection of strategies) and the resulting influence on the percentage 

of wildlife habitat types (Vail, Appendix L). 

Analyses of species’ key ecological functions are based on the Northwest 

Habitat Institute’s Species Habitat Project (SHP) database. The SHP 

database was initially developed for Oregon and Washington and built 

upon in part from the efforts of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project (ICBEMP) to include the entire Columbia Basin in 

the United States. Increasing the area of coverage for the SHP database to 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-4

the whole basin within the United States resulted in adding 12 wildlife 

species to the SHP database. We have made progress in including fish key 

ecological functions into this expanded database, but this work is not 

complete.

One of the fundamental features of the EDT approach is the relationship 

between two dimensions: habitat attributes and population productivity 

across the landscape. Population productivity, a dimension that drives 

the Ricker and Beverton-Holt models, is important to fishery biologists for 

setting harvest management guidelines. The implied relationship 

between habitat, productivity, and fish management seems reasonable but 

recent calls for an ecosystem–based approach imply that an additional 

dimension of processes, beyond habitat description, may be at play. For 

example, Rose (2000) cited community-level interactions, habitat 

complexities, and cumulative effects as three of six issues that have 

prevented fisheries managers from achieving their goal of sustainability. 

Cederholm et al. (2000), in a manner similar to Rose, discussed the need 

for an ecosystem approach to understand the cumulative impacts of 

human development on fisheries management. These, as well as other 

authors, call for new tools to assess these processes (community 

interaction, habitat complexities and cumulative effects) and to provide an 

additional dimension of insight to the relationship between habitat and 

regaining lost fish productivity and diversity. 

Schlosser and Kallemeyn (2000), on the heels of the above articles, opined 

that there has been a fundamental shift in ecology toward a broader 

geographic perspective that incorporates hierarchically-structured and 

scale-dependent levels of variation and complexity. Their insightful 

article on the spatial and temporal relationship between beaver and fish 

abundance and diversity not only clearly demonstrates the importance 

and roles of wildlife-generated structures in the aquatic environment, but 

also documents the importance of the additional dimension of ecosystem 

functions as beaver dams are built, abandoned, collapse, and rebuilt in 

relation to changing hydrologies in space and time. The documented 

relationships between higher fish species diversity and the collapsed 

successional beaver ponds, and between higher fish abundance (lower 

diversity) with intact beaver dams and the nonrandom distribution of 

successional environments on the landscape, indicate that we need to 

consider the third dimension of habitat analyses, species, and ecological 

functions, across landscapes, to better understand and predict 

relationships between habitat and fish abundance and diversity.

The Framework proposes to assess this third dimension of habitat using 

the concept of key ecological functions (KEF) developed by Marcot et al. 

(1997) and expanded by Marcot and Vander Heyden (2000). Analyses of 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-5

KEFs across the landscape in the Framework hierarchical process can 

provide insight to both upland and aquatic functional webs that may, as 

Rose (2000) opined and Schlosser and Kallemeyen (2000) demonstrated, 

improve the understanding of how habitat attributes influence fish and 

wildlife sustainability.

A variety of concepts (e.g., energy flow, trophic relationships, indices of 

biological productivity, Lotka and Volterra predator and prey equations, 

and aggregated functional groups such as guilds) are available to 

investigate fish and wildlife interaction (Powers et al. 1995, Karr 1991, 

Rose 2000, and deMaynadier and Hunter 1997). These and other concepts 

were reviewed and considered by the Ecological Work Group. While the 

many concepts available to us offered their own unique insights into 

community relationships, none of them offered the opportunity to quickly 

assess and integrate the ecological functions of all species in the 

community from a common database. Furthermore, none of the concepts 

available to us could be readily linked to the population models (e.g., 

Beverton-Holt and Ricker) that are important to fisheries managers.

The EDT approach, which uses a Beverton-Holt hierarchical-landscape 

model, offers several opportunities for community level input as Level 2 

Attributes. For example, beaver ponds, predation, and community 

interactions are Level 2 Attributes that relate directly to wildlife functions. 

Thus our ability to quantify and rank these Level 2 Attributes for the same 

landscape units (i.e., HUC 6) used by EDT will improve the quality of the 

variables that drive the EDT landscape assessment. 

We used two basic approaches to quantify wildlife species and 

community input to EDT. Both of these approaches are closely associated 

with and rely on the SHP Wildlife Habitat Relationship (WHR) database 

(Johnson and O’Neil 2000). The first approach used wildlife habitatcapacity models to assess the likelihood that specific wildlife functions, 

such as beaver dams, are likely to occur in a given HUC 6. A Habitat 

Condition Index (a HEP-type analysis for large landscapes) has been 

developed to assess habitat condition for individual species. Output from 

this methodology can be the basis for: (1) ranking EDT Level 2 Attributes 

such as the presence of beaver ponds and (2) assigning a weight to a 

particular species to assign a proportional contribution to a particular 

ecological function. For example, a predatory species in marginal habitat 

(low HCI) is not likely to be a large contributor to the piscivory function. 

The second approach is to harness key ecological function (KEF) analyses 

(Figure III.B.1) to assess EDT Level 2 Attributes such as Community 

Richness. For example, functional redundancy is calculated for all wildlife 

species, performing a function per the WHR database, for each HUC6. 

While this analysis is currently limited to wildlife, there is ample 

Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-6

opportunity for including fish and wildlife functions in this assessment 

method. Fish functions for chinook and bull trout have been successfully 

integrated with wildlife function in pilot analyses. Functional redundancy 

is but one of several functional analyses that can be quantified in a 

hierarchical analysis to examine patterns of the “functional web” of fish 

and wildlife.

The wildlife analyses in this report, at the basin level, are based on wildlife 

habitats assessed from coarse digital data from a variety of databases. 

They are intended to be instructive and focus on the Framework vision of 

a multispecies process with a salmon emphasis. We illustrate two ways 

fish and wildlife can be integrated and offer a procedure to assess 

functional influences (for fish and wildlife) that can stand on its own as 

well as be related to salmonid models (i.e., EDT). At the basin level we 

will use our analyses to question whether alternatives/strategies for 

salmonid recovery will: (1) provide similar benefits for wildlife, (2) have a 

negative influence on wildlife and (3) potentially influence functional 

linkages between fish and wildlife (and visa versa). This initial basin 

analysis is only the beginning in that it provides a Framework for similar 

analyses at the province and subbasin levels of the landscape hierarchy. 

As similar types of analyses are conducted at the lower hierarchical levels, 

with a finer scale of data and area specific models, the lower level analyses 

should be re-aggregated (Stienetz et al., 1999) at the basin level to re-assess 

the basic interactive questions cited above.

To summarize, the Framework process has developed a common platform 

(database, methodology and theory) for assessing fish and wildlife 

populations and ecosystem function in the Columbia Basin. Several 

applied examples are presented in the following report and suggestions 

for database and methodological advancements are presented. In 

addition, the platform provides the foundation for addressing ecosystem 

goals and biological objectives at various hierarchical scales within the 

basin.

Overview of Information Used

Determining Wildlife Species Information

The wildlife information that supports the Framework analysis comes 

from a 4-year project that recently updates databases on wildlife-habitat 

relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). We 

refer to this project as the Species Habitat Project (SHP) that was initially 

developed for Oregon-Washington and later expanded to include the U.S. 

portion of the Columbia River Basin. The SHP data set has information on 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-7

593 wildlife species occurring in Oregon and Washington; this data set 

was modified to include an additional 12 wildlife species known to occur 

in Idaho, Western Montana, Nevada, Utah or Wyoming. The initial data 

set was built using 18 expert panels that specified each wildlife species’ 

association with habitats and ecological conditions or variables, and that 

assigned confidence levels to each wildlife species for each habitat type or 

structural condition. The additional 12 wildlife species we added and 

their habitat and ecological relationships were determined during an 

internal review. This review re-examined the SHP database for species 

with similar life histories and reviewed the ICBEMP data for these 12 

species. Lastly, a literature review was conducted to develop an updated 

life history account for each species. The literature was also used to 

support the depictions of how management activities were linked to the 

key environmental correlates data. Species nomenclature follows Collins 

et al. (1990), Leonard et al. (1993), and Storm and Leonard (1995) for 

amphibians and reptiles; American Ornithologists’ Union (1998) for birds; 

and Verts and Carraway (1998), Wilson and Reeder (1993), Jones et al. 

(1992), Hall (1981), Frost and Timm (1992) and van Zyll de Jong (1984) for 

mammals.

A number of primary sources were used to establish or confirm wildlife 

species occurrences: Csuti et al. (1997), Verts and Carraway (1998), Ingles 

(1965), Hall (1981), Bailey (1936), Gilligan et al. (1994), ODFW (1994), 

Puchy and Marshall (1993), Dvornich et al. (1997), Johnson and Cassidy 

(1997), Smith et al. (1997), and Brueggeman (1992). Supplemental 

information also came from Alexander (1996), Aubry (1982), Aubry and 

Houston (1992), Best (1988), and Bradley (1982).

The expert panels that developed the SHP data set had on hand range 

maps for each species, wildlife-habitat type and distribution maps, 

statewide vegetation maps, and a variety of other reference materials. 

These sources of material helped the panelists to determine wildlife 

species occurrence within a particular habitat type. To characterize the 

degree of association a wildlife species has with its habitat, the following 

categories were assigned in the SHP database: 

Closely Associated - A wildlife species is widely known to depend on a 

habitat or structural condition for part or all of its life history 

requirements. Identifying this association implies that the species has an 

essential need for this habitat or structural condition for its maintenance 

and viability. Some species may be closely associated with >1 habitat or 

structural condition, where as others may be closely associated with only 

one habitat or structural condition. 

Generally Associated - A wildlife species exhibits a high degree of 

adaptability and may be supported by a number of habitats or structural 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-8

conditions. In other words, the habitats or structural conditions play a 

supportive role for its maintenance and viability.

Present - A wildlife species demonstrates occasional use of a habitat or 

structural condition. The habitat or structural condition provides 

marginal support to the species for its maintenance and viability.

Finally, the expert panelists assigned an overall confidence rating to the 

occurrence and activity headings for each species within each habitat type 

or structural condition. The confidence ratings were denoted as high (e.g., 

many peer-review published accounts), moderate, and low (e.g., few or no 

published accounts, mainly observations). By ascribing a confidence 

rating, the end user gets an idea of the overall strength of the scientific 

evidence.

Determining the Wildlife-Habitat Information

Wildlife-habitat type is defined by O’Neil and Johnson (2001) as a group 

of vegetation cover types that is determined based on the similarity of 

wildlife use. For a detailed discussion of this approach see O’Neil et al. 

(1995). We used the wildlife-habitat types as defined by their approach 

because these habitat types can be based on current vegetation and 

therefore can be mapped, as well as modeled to represent historic and 

future conditions. Wildlife-habitat types are not species-specific because 

they are based on the similarity of multiple wildlife species using a suite 

of vegetation types, and we assume they contain the essential needs for a 

species' maintenance and viability. However, a wildlife species’ "habitat" 

refers to an individual, species-specific use of a wildlife-habitat type (Hall 

et al. 1997).

The wildlife habitat relationships SHP database depicts coarse-level 

wildlife-habitat types, structural conditions (structural and seral stages of 

vegetation), and site-specific KECs. The Framework analysis presented in 

this report is based only on the coarse-level wildlife-habitat type data. As 

the Framework process proceeds to the subbasin levels of analysis, 

managers will be encouraged to integrate site-specific structure and KEC 

data into the subbasin-scale assessment process. The hope is that 

knowing the species’ relationship with its habitat type, structural 

conditions and KECs will help make better predictions for species 

occurrences and ecological conditions in an area. Knowing that ecological 

condition is based on physical parameters should also help to identify the 

key ecological functions that are operating (as well as missing) in an area. 

Key ecological function information for chinook and bull trout is being 

added to the array of wildlife in KEFs this data set as reported in the 

results. 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-9

Natural History of Selected Species

We selected 3 wildlife species for conducting and exemplifying 

population and species-specific assessments: American black bear, bald 

eagle, and American beaver.

Black Bear

Legal, Economic, and Abundance Status

The American black bear (Ursus americanus) is widely distributed within 

the Columbia River Basin and is managed according to the big game or 

furbearer regulations in all seven states. These regulations usually allow a 

general hunting season and a controlled harvest to occur annually; 

however, most states within the Columbia River Basin have spring and 

fall hunting seasons. The legitimate economic value of the black bear 

comes from selling hunting licenses, which in turn becomes a source of 

revenue for individual states’ fish and wildlife agencies. An illegal 

economic value stems from poaching black bears and selling specific body 

parts (such as gall bladders) to collectors or for aphrodisiac purposes to 

those who highly prize their value. 

Black bears occur in 32 states within the United States (Beecham and 

Rohlman 1994).

Life History Characteristics

The black bear is a year-round resident species in the Columbia River 

Basin and can be found primarily associated with forested habitats that 

range from sea level to 8,500 feet (2590 m) (Beecham and Rohlman 1994, 

Vander Heyden 1997, Verts and Carraway 1998). Black bears are large 

mammals whose size and weight show high variability depending on 

food availability. Generally, adult bears range from 35 to 40 inches (89 to 

102 cm) high when standing on all fours and have a length of 4 1⁄2 to 6 feet 

(1.4 to 1.9 m). An adult black bear can weigh from 125 to 600 pounds (46 

to 224 kg) and males are usually larger than females. The life span of black 

bears in the wild can be 20 to 25 years.

Most female bears breed at three years of age, but in one study in Idaho 

the first age of breeding was noted as 5.5 years. Females usually produce 

one litter with one to three cubs every two years and can be with young 

any time of the year. Mating occurs in June and July and the black bear 

has delayed implantation so the embryo does not begin to develop until 

November or December (Verts and Carraway 1998). Typically, the black 

bears den underground, in a tree cavity, or in a cave. However, they have 

also been known to den on the ground or in a brush pile. Females enter 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-10

their dens in October or early November, and most bears leave the den in 

March but some females with newborn cubs may stay until April. Young 

are born between mid-January to mid-February and remain with the 

female until they are about 16-17 months old. 

Sizes of home ranges vary with quality and area of habitat and with males 

and females. In a coniferous forest on an island in southwestern 

Washington, average home ranges of females were 580 acres (235 ha), and 

of males 1,250 acres (506 ha). In contrast, in Idaho, home ranges of males 

were 27,700 acres (11,210 ha) and of females 12,085 acres (4,890 ha) (Verts 

and Carraway 1998). These two assessments may represent the extremes 

in home-range size. Home range location remains relatively constant 

from year to year, but bears use parts of their home ranges variably 

depending on food availability among the seasons.

The black bear is an omnivore. Although the majority of its diet consists 

of grasses, forbs, berries, nuts and fruits, bears do eat mammals (e.g., elk 

calves), insects, carrion and fish (Jacoby et al. 1999, Berwick et al. 1986). 

Food is an important element of fitness as reflected in litter size, age of 

breeding, and in overwintering, i.e. maintaining fat reserves during 

hibernation (Rogers 1977). Berry crop failures have been identified as 

contributing to mortality of starving subadults (Jonkel and Cowan 1971,

Reynolds and Beecham 1980).

Habitat studies of black bears have shown that the most important 

function of cover is to enable escape. Beecham and Rohlman (1994) noted 

that bears tended to feed near cover (<250 yd or 228 m) from a forest edge 

and used riparian area and stringers of timber for travel corridors as well. 

Sows with cubs consistently avoided clearcuts and roads, using mature 

timber significantly more than males. In Idaho, bears preferred to stay 

more than 150 ft (46 m) from roads (Beecham and Rohlman 1994). Powell 

et al. (1997) found that people caused a significant amount of mortality by 

hunting, poaching, and road kills.

The black bear is an ecological generalist whose ecological roles are 

important to all categories of the wildlife-habitat types where it occurs. 

The black bear provides 27 categories of KEFs and in some wildlife-habitat 

types is the only provider of some of these functions. For example, the 

black bear is the only identified species to physically fragment standing 

wood in an upland aspen forest.

Habitats Relationships

The black bear is associated with 24 of the 32 wildlife-habitat types in the 

SHP database (Table III.B.2). As habitat generalists they do not have a 

close association with any one habitat type. This is further supported by 
Habitat Type Association Activities Confidence Comments

Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Alpine Grasslands and Shrublands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Westside Grasslands Present Feeds and Breeds Moderate None noted

Ceanothus-Manzanita Shrublands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Unsure Occurrence-Western Juniper and 

Mountain Mahogany woodlands Unsure Unsure Low None noted

Eastside (Interior) Canyon Shrublands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Eastside (Interior) Grasslands Present Feeds High May feed in this habitat where it is 

near forested habitats

Shrub-steppe Present Feeds Low May feed in this habitat where it is 

near forested habitats

Dwarf Shrub-steppe Present Feeds Low May feed in this habitat where it is 

near forested habitats

Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environs Generally 

Associated Feeds High May feed in this habitat where it is near forested habitats

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and 

Woodlands

Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Urban and Mixed Environs Generally 

Associated Feeds High None noted

Herbaceous Wetlands Generally 

Associated Feeds High None noted

Westside Riparian-Wetlands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Mountain Coniferous Wetlands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Eastside (Interior) Riparian-Wetlands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Coastal Headlands and Islets Present Feeds Moderate None noted

Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood 

Forest

Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forest Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodlands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Upland Aspen Forest Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Subalpine Parkland Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High None noted

Table III.B.2 Wildlife-habitat types utilized by the black bear along with their activity, association, and 

confidence levels.
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-11

its “Generally Associated” status for 18 habitat types and “Present” status 

for another 5 habitat types. Feeding and breeding activities in Table III.B.2 

indicate the black bear feeds and breeds in 15 habitats and only feeds in 

eight habitat types. Confidence levels in determining these associations 

and activities were mostly high. However, two moderate confidence 

levels were noted (for coastal headlands and westside grasslands) along 

with three low confidence levels (for shrub-steppe and dwarf shrubsteppe).

Association with Salmon

Black bears are known and documented to have a strong and consistent 

association with salmon when there is an abundant population of salmon. 

The salmon life stages that bears associated with are spawning and when 

salmon become a carcass (Cederholm et al. 2000).

Habitat Attributes Modeled

The HCI assessment method for the black bear is diagrammed to provide 

an overview of the steps taken to evaluate habitat quality across the basin 

(Figures III.B.2a and III.B.2b). The details and code for this assessment 

method are outlined in Appendix F. Data were collected and analyzed for 

all 6-HUCs in the basin. Each 6-HUC is assigned an HCI score. Once the 

data were collected, we analyzed only those 6-HUCs where at least 20 

percent of the 6-HUC was rated Associated (i.e., Closely or Generally 

Associated in Table III.B.2). If 20 percent of the HUC was rated 

associated, we determined if 80 percent of the HUC-6 was in the known 

range for the black bear. If 80 percent of the HUC was in the black bear 

range, we determined if 90 percent of the HUC was non-urban. If this was 

the case, we then determined if 50 percent or less of the HUC was in 

agriculture. 

Sixth field HUCs that met the above conditions were assessed for three 

components: cover, food, and human disturbance. Cover was assessed by 

two variables: (1) weighted percent of the “occurrence index (Present = 1, 

Generally Associated = 2, Closely Associated = 3)” and (2) percent 

forested habitat present in the 6 - HUC being analyzed. Food was 

assessed by three variables: (1) weighted percent of wildlife habitat types 

designated as “Feeding habitat” in Table III.B.2, (2) the berry index, and 

(3) presence or absence of salmon carcasses in a 6-HUC. The berry index 

was developed for each wildlife-habitat type designated as “Feeds” or 

“Feeds and Breeds” in Table III.B.2. Wildlife-habitat types were given a 

rank depending on the number of berry-producing plant species listed in 

the habitat type descriptions in the SHP database (O’Neil et al. 2001). 

Each wildlife-habitat type habitat was assigned a high, medium, or low 


Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-12

rank (1.0 = high, 0.5 = medium, 0.0 = low). Human disturbance was 

assessed with three variables: (1) Percent urban coverage in the HUC, (2) 

percent agricultural coverage, and (3) Road density. Results from these 

analyses were aggregated to determine the Habitat Condition Index 

(HCI) for each 6-HUC. HCI values where then aggregated up to ecological 

province and the entire basin. The detailed steps taken in the GIS portion 

of the HCI analysis are presented in Appendix F.

Bald Eagle

Legal Economic, and Abundance Status

Throughout the Columbia River Basin, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) is federally listed as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act in all seven states. Nonetheless, because of 

recovery efforts lead by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in partnership 

with other federal, state, tribes, and local governments, conservation 

organizations, and private entities, the bald eagle is being considered for 

removal from this federal designation. The delisting, a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife proposal in 1999, is related to the increase in eagle numbers 

throughout their range. For example, in 1960 only 417 nesting pairs were 

found in lower 48 states and today the estimate is over 5,700. Hence, 

many resource biologists and managers are assessing whether or not the 

bald eagle warrants special protection afforded by the Endangered Species 

Act. This eagle is also protected by the federal law, Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, as well as, under individual state’s non-game laws. The bald eagle 

has no legal economic value.

Life History Characteristics

The bald eagle is a year-round resident in the Columbia River Basin and 

can be found along most major river courses and ranges from sea level to 

8,000 feet (2438 m) (Garrett et al. 1993; Stalmaster 1987). Adults weigh 

seven to 10 pounds (2.6 to 3.7 kg) with a wingspan of 6 1⁄2 feet (2 m). They 

have been known to live more than 20 years in the wild, and the age at 

first breeding is usually five years. The bald eagle builds its nest in the 

tops of large live trees usually near water and nests can be up to 20 feet 

wide (6 m) and weigh up to 4,000 pounds (1492 kg) (Knight et al. 1983, 

Hermata 1989). Food habits vary with seasons and locations, and they do 

take advantage of fish (suckers, trout, and whitefish), birds (particularly 

waterfowl), salmon carcasses (especially in the fall and winter), and 

mammal carrion (Stalmaster 1984 and 1994). 

Bald eagles begin laying eggs from early March to early April with mean 

hatching dates from mid-April to mid-May. Incubation of eggs usually 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-13

lasts 34-36 days and they fledge one to two young per year but can fledge 

three on occasion (Stalmaster 1987). Fledging occurs 10 to 14 weeks after

hatching or generally in early August. Bald eagles usually have some 

fidelity with the nest sites and even though they can travel great distances 

(Gerrard et al. 1978), most nest within 100 miles of where they were 

originally raised (Jenkins and Jackman 1993). Bald eagles are known to 

use a communal roost especially in the winter when salmon are spawning. 

Up to 300 bald eagles may use a single roost site (Knight et al. 1983). 

Human disturbance can affect perching, roosting, and feeding (Fraser 

1985, Knight and Knight 1986). Bald eagles are more sensitive to human 

activities on the river (boating or fishing) than to vehicle traffic or airplane 

flight (Stalmaster and Newman 1978, Knight and Knight 1984, and 

Department of Interior 1986). However, bald eagles can tolerate some 

human activity where there is an abundant food supply and adequate 

habitat (Stalmaster and Newman 1978; Steenhof 1978). Human activity 

that occurs beyond 1/3 of a mile (or 500m) from a bald eagle use area 

seldom disturbs the birds (Stalmaster and Newman 1978).

Habitats Relationships

The bald eagle is associated with 23 of the 32 wildlife-habitat types (Table 

III.B.1) listed for the region. Associations with wildlife habitat types in 

Table III.B.1 indicate the bald eagle is “Closely Associated” with one 

habitat type, open water; “Generally Associated” with 16; and “Present” 

in another eight. Feeding and breeding activities in Table III.B.2 indicate 

the eagle just breeds in nine, breeds and feeds in an additional five, and 

just feeds in another 11. Confidence levels with making these 

determinations are mostly high with the exception of one wildlife-habitat 

type, feeding in westside grasslands, which is low.

Association with Salmon

 The bald eagle has a strong and consistent relationship with salmon as a 

predator on salmon. This relationship extends to three salmon life stages: 

saltwater residence (when they are smolts, immature, and adults), 

spawning, and carcasses. The eagle also has an indirect relationship with 

salmon because they are known to feed on birds that also feed on salmon 

(Cederholm et al. 2000).

Habitat Model Input

The bald eagle model, similar to the black bear model, was developed to 

assess habitat quality (i.e., Habitat Condition Index) for three time 

periods: historic, current and future. Input variables selected for the 
Habitat Type Association Activities Confidence Comments

Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood 

Forest

Generally 

Associated Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open 

water habitats.

Alpine Grasslands and Shrublands Present Feeds Low Known to occur in sub-alpine and alpine areas 

on Vancouver island, B.C.

Westside Grasslands Present Feeds Low None noted

Shrub-steppe Present Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open 

water hapbitats, and if suitable nest

Dwarf Shrub-steppe Present Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open 

water habitats.

Desert Playa and Salt Scrub Shrublands Present Feeds High Wintering.

Agricutulre, pastures, and Mixed 

Environs

Generally 

Associated Feeds High None noted

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir 

Forest and woodlands

Generally 

Associated Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open 

water habitats.

urban and Mixed Environs Generally 

Associated

Feeds and 

Breeds High

could breed in this habitat where near open 

water habitats, and if suitable nest structures 

are available.

Open Water - lakes, Rovers, and 

streams

Closely 

Assocaited Feeds High None noted

Herbaceous Wetland Generally 

Associated Feeds High None noted

Westside Riparian - Wetlands Generally 

Associated

Feeds and 

Breeds High None noted

Eastside (Interior) Riparian - Wetlands Generally 

Associated

Feeds and 

Breeds High None noted

Coastal Dunes and Beaches Present Feeds High None noted

Coastal Headlands and Islets Generally 

Associated

Feeds and 

Breeds High None noted

Bays and Estuaries Generally 

Associated

Feeds and 

Breeds High

Requires some sort of structure to place nest 

on, such as old pilings, if breeding is to occur 

in this habitat.

Inland Marine Deeper waters Generally 

Associated Feeds High None noted

Southwest Oregon Mixed ConiferHardwood ForestGenerally 

Associated Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open water habitats.

Marine Nearshire Generally 

Associated Feeds High None noted

Marine shelf Present Feeds Moderate None noted

Montane Mixed conifer Forest Generally 

Associated Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open water habitats.

Eastside (Interior) Mixed Confier Forest Generally 

Associated Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open water habitats.

Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands Generally 

Associated Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open water habitats.

Ponderosa Pine Forest and Wooldlands Generally 

Associated Reproduces High Could breed in this habitat where near open water habitats.

Subalpine Parkland Present Feeds Low Known to occur in sub-alpine and alpine areas 

on Vancouver island, B.C.

Table III.B.1 Wildlife habitat types associated with the bald eagle along with their activity, association, 

and confidence levels.
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-14

model were based on: (1) availability of a consistent data set for all 6-

HUCs in the basin, (2) importance to bald eagle nesting, roosting, and 

foraging and (3) likelihood that proposed management activities would 

influence the variables. Our review of the literature (summarized above) 

indicated that consistent information on nesting and roosting sites was not 

available for all 6-HUCs in the basin. Consequently, nesting and roosting 

sites and the influence of human disturbance on them was not included in 

the model. Analyses at the subbasin level are more likely to have access to 

local databases and professionals who are familiar with nest and roost 

sites and human use areas.

The Habitat Condition Index for the bald eagle was developed by 

evaluating generalized foraging and breeding information for the various 

wildlife-habitat types in the SHP database. Habitat associations (Closely 

and Generally Associated in Table III.B.1) and habitat activities (feeds, 

breeds and feeds, and breeds in Table III.B.1) for the various wildlife 

habitat types in the SHP database were the main input variables we used 

to evaluate food and cover, as outlined in Figure III.B.3. The detailed 

steps taken in the GIS portion of the HCI analysis are presented in 

Appendix F.

American Beaver

The American beaver was selected as a species to assess in the MultiSpecies Framework because of the association with aquatic ecosystems 

and with fish diversity and abundance (Schlosser and Kallemeyn 2000). 

Our HCI assessment of the American beaver included three components: 

physical condition, cover, and food, similar to our assessment of black 

bear and the bald eagle. The first step of the of analysis steps, data 

collection, was problematic for this species. The scale of the habitat data 

was too coarse and the assessment method met with failure as discussed 

in the Results. 

Legal, Economic, and Abundance Status

The American beaver (Castor canadensis) is widely distributed within the 

Columbia River Basin and is govern by the furbearer regulations that are 

in place in all seven states. The legitimate economic value of the beaver 

comes to individuals who trap them and in turn sell their pelts. 

Sometimes, the beaver is considered a nuisance because it can cause 

erosion, blockages or flooding. Hence, landowners can have beaver 

removed or relocated depending on the amount of damage being 

sustained. The American beaver occurs in all 50 states (Hill 1982), and the 

estimated population in the early development of North America is 

60,000,000. 

Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-15

Life History Characteristics

The beaver is associated primarily with forested and aquatic habitats from 

sea level to 7,500 feet (2286 m) elevation (Verts and Carraway 1998). 

Beavers’ size and weight show high variability depending on food 

availability. Adult beavers are up to 47 inches (120 cm) long and weigh 

from 47 to 83 pounds (16 to 31 kg). The lifespan of beavers in the wild can 

be greater than 20 years, however few live beyond 10 years (Jenkins 1979).

Most female beavers breed at three years of age, the average number of 

offspring per litter is three, and they only have one litter per year. Mating 

occurs mostly in January through February and the gestation period takes 

105 - 107 days. Most of the offspring are born in May and June, and the 

young are weaned at two to three months and leave the natal lodge at the 

end of their first or second year (Verts and Carraway 1998). Typically, 

beavers build lodges on banks of streams or ponds, or burrow in banks.

Beavers usually form colonies consisting of a mated pair, their yearlings, 

and offspring of the year. They have variable dispersal distances from 1.8 

– 13.8 miles (2.9 - 22.2 km) and dispersers of various ages averaged 5.6 

miles (9.0 km) in a straight line distance (Leege 1968). Beavers are active 

all year long.

A beaver colony is a single group of four to eight animals per stream 

reach. A colony uses a common food supply, and maintains common 

dams. An average of one to two colonies/mile of stream occur in good 

habitat (Lawrence 1954; Aleksiuk 1968). Naiman et al. (1986) suggested 

that beavers are “keystone” species because of their relationship to 

salmonids and ability to “affect ecosystem structure and dynamics far 

beyond their immediate requirement for food and space.” Removal of 

beavers has been shown to fundamentally alter aquatic ecosystem 

functions (Spence et al. 1996).

Habitats Relationships

The American beaver is associated with 16 of the 32 wildlife-habitat types 

in the SHP database (Table III.B.3). As an aquatic specialist it is “Closely 

Associated” with four open water, wetland and riparian habitat types 

(Table III.B.3). It is “Generally Associated” with eight habitat types and 

“Present” in another five habitat types. The beaver is identified to feed 

and breed in four wetland habitats and in subalpine parkland where wet 

meadows occur (Table III.B.3). Confidence in these associations and 

activities is mostly high. However, moderate confidence levels were noted 

for agriculture, urban, and subapline parklands, along with one low level 

of confidence for western juniper and mountain mahogany woodlands).
Habitat Type Association Activities Confidence Comments

Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest Generally 

Associated Feeds High none noted

Western Juniper and Mountain Mahogany 

Woodlands Present Feeds Low none noted

Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environs Present Feeds Moderate none noted

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and 

Woodlands

Generally 

Associated Feeds High none noted

Urban and Mixed Environs Present Feeds Moderate none noted

Open Water - Lakes, Rivers, and Streams Closely 

Associated Reproduces High none noted

Herbaceous Wetlands Closely 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High none noted

Westside Riparian-Wetlands Closely 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High none noted

Montane Coniferous Wetlands Generally 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High none noted

Eastside (Interior) Riparian-Wetlands Closely 

Associated Feeds and Breeds High none noted

Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest Generally 

Associated Feeds High none noted

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Generally 

Associated Feeds High none noted

Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forest Generally 

Associated Feeds High none noted

Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands Generally 

Associated Feeds High none noted

Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodlands Generally 

Associated Feeds High none noted

Upland Aspen Forest Present Feeds High May use this habitat if not too far from 

water.

Subalpine Parkland Present Feeds and Breeds Moderate Known from subalpine meadows in 

Mt. Rainier National Park.

Table III.B.3 Wildlife habitat types associated with the American beaver along with their activity, 

association and confidence levels.
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-16

Association with Salmon

The beaver is not known to eat or prey on salmon. However, from a 

habitat standpoint, the beaver does have a close association with salmon 

because of its ability to create ponds and enhance functional processes 

that are favorable for salmon (Hill 1982; Schlosser and Kallemeyn 2000).

Habitat Model Input

Input variables to the beaver HCI model included stream hydrology, 

wildlife-habitat types, food, and breeding. Habitat types, food, and 

breeding were assessed using information from the SHP database (Table 

III.B.3). Also, the value of the agriculture habitat type was discounted in 

the model even though beaver can occur in this habitat type. The stream 

hydrology conditions that were assessed included monthly flow and 

amount of sinuosity (meandering in a stream). A diagram of the model 

outlining the steps of the analysis process is not presented for the beaver 

because the site-specific stream hydrology data and fine-scale wildlife 

habitat data were not available on a consistent basis across the basin. 

Details of the proposed analytical method to assess beaver HCI are 

summarized in Appendix F. 

Major Assumptions

Basin-wide Wildlife Habitat Type Maps

Two wildlife-habitat type maps were developed for the Multi-Species 

Framework process to depict historic (potential) and current conditions. 

These maps served as a base for making assessments between the historic 

and current conditions (Vail, Appendix L). Future (year 2100) conditions 

under each alternative were also developed. Collectively, we used these 

two maps and the future habitat type projection to evaluate black bear, 

bald eagle, beaver, and key ecological functions of wildlife species under 

historic, current, and future conditions.

Two wildlife-habitat type maps were developed for the Multi-Species 

Framework process to depict historic and current conditions. These maps 

served as a base for making assessments between the historic, current, and 

alternative conditions for evaluating black bear, bald eagle, beaver, and 

key ecological functions. Wildlife-habitat type maps are useful for 

integrating concepts so that the outputs can be visually displayed. 

However, there are some limitations in their use as discussed below. 

Comparing two maps can show how vegetation communities can change 

through time. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

Project and related assessments also address vegetation changes since 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-17

early historic times, as reported by Everett et al. (1994), Hann et al. (1998), 

Hessburg et al. (2000), and Huff et al. (1995).

Current Conditions

The Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) developed a map depicting the 

current distribution of the 32 wildlife habitats types, described by the SHP 

project, for the Columbia River Basin in the United States. This map was 

compiled from existing vegetation maps that were created for each state as 

part of the National Gap Analysis Program sponsored by US Geological 

Survey, Biological Resource Division (USGS/BRD). Each state’s map is 

based on interpreting vegetation cover data from satellite imagery. 

Vegetation maps from all or parts of seven states (Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) in the Columbia 

River Basin were used by NHI to develop the wildlife habitat types map 

depicting current conditions.

The primary purpose for developing the vegetation maps for the National 

Gap Analysis Program was for USGS/BRD to conduct statewide 

biodiversity assessments. Hence, the resolution of their vegetation maps 

reflects a statewide, regional, or coarse resolution for planning. That is, 

their maps can serve as an initial basis for large-scale mapping or database 

investigations but they are more accurately interpreted at the statewide or 

province scales, and only for some of the largest subbasins.

Hence, the current wildlife-habitat type map provides only an initial 

depiction of the amounts of wildlife habitats that may exist within 

watersheds, but is not of sufficient resolution for depicting the site-specific 

location of habitats within each watershed. The minimum mapping unit 

for the basin-wide map is 250 acres (100 ha), whereas a more appropriate 

scale for within watershed assessments would be 10-75 acres (4-30 ha) 

depending on land ownership and habitat patch sizes. Thus, wildlife 

habitats that occur in patch sizes less than 250 acres, e.g. linear riparian 

habitat, are likely underrepresented in the current map.

Further, there has been no formal validation of the basin-wide current 

wildlife habitat map. Because maps are only a representation of reality 

and cannot depict all the detail represented in nature, some generalization 

is unavoidable. Remotely sensed maps developed from photo 

interpretation or satellite imagery also contain some errors. Conducting 

an accuracy assessment allows the user to know at a glance what the 

overall reliability is, so that when decisions are made the accuracy of the 

map can be taken into account. Because of the size of the mapping area, 

time frame, and costs, no formal accuracy assessment was done. 

However, the National Biodiversity Gap Analysis Program had a goal of 

80 percent overall accuracy for each state’s vegetation map, and NHI 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-18

accepted their stated validity of their map products.

Finally, because there is a desire to move towards subbasin information, 

which would entail maps produced at finer resolutions than presented in 

this report, accuracy assessments may be less critical or a lower priority 

for the current array of map products than for later map products 

produced at the subbasin scale. We do recognize the importance of 

conducting accuracy assessments and that they would be critical to the 

utility and acceptance of subbasin-scale maps as a tool for resource 

managers. In general, accuracy assessments would entail determining the 

classification error in maps by using an a priori target level of thematic 

map accuracy (for subbasin mapping we would propose a per class 

accuracy of 75 percent and overall map accuracy of 80 percent) and 

designing the empirical assessment (number of sampling points, etc.) 

based on statistical sampling procedures (Stehman, 1992).

Historic (Potential) Conditions

A historic (potential) map was developed by NHI by combining products 

from two previous works: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project (ICBEMP; USDA Forest Service 1997), and the 

Oregon Biodiversity Project (Defenders of Wildlife 1998). These two 

mapping efforts used very different methods. The ICBEMP historic data 

were mostly derived from a model, whereas at least a portion of the 

Oregon Biodiversity Project map was created by using surveyors’ notes 

from the 1850 land survey. 

NHI combined these efforts to create a wildlife habitat map that depicts 

historic (potential) conditions of the Columbia River Basin in the U.S. The 

result is a historic map that is a theoretical construct with a coarse (1-km 

square pixel size) level of resolution designed to give a regional 

perspective. This map can provide only initial approximations of the 

presence and distribution of wildlife habitat types within specific 

subbasins and watersheds because of the need for more detailed 

information at these levels. 

Because of the limitations with the historic map, no validation of this map 

was done. We are unaware of any previously collected detailed 

information for all the subbasins and watersheds throughout the specific 

geographic areas of basin addressed in this project. Further, because there 

are no recognized historical data sets that would give such a basin 

perspective, validation would be difficult. Hence, the historic map best 

depicts gross generalizations of gains or loses of specific wildlife habitat 

types. Additionally, it can give a user an idea of what the potential may 

have existed within provinces and within larger subbasins. 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-19

Structural Conditions

Many species of wildlife are affected by both the general macrohabitat 

conditions, depicted in our maps as wildlife habitat types, and by the 

specific structure of vegetation. However, to accurately depict 

distribution and abundance of vegetation structure would require 

spatially explicit data sets at both coarse and fine levels of resolution. A 

coarse level map typically has a minimum mapping unit (mmu) of about 

250 acres, whereas a finer level map shows details at about a 10-acre mmu.

Because fine-level data are either not available or have not been 

synthesized for all lands basin-wide, the outcomes presented here should 

be used to interpret wildlife-habitat type information only at a coarse 

scale. Vegetation structural conditions are best depicted at a finer level of 

resolution, that is, at a stand level with a 10-to-40 acre mmu, and should 

be included in future subbasin mapping efforts.

Consideration of vegetation structure can greatly influence analysis and 

interpretation of wildlife-habitat relationships. We selected a few 

subwatersheds (6th HUC) for which vegetation structure information was 

available, and found that consideration of structural condition influenced 

results of projecting wildlife species and their key ecological functions 

within the area. Thus, we concluded that, at such finer scales of mapping 

resolution, vegetation structure likely influences the presence and 

distribution of wildlife species and thus overall ecosystem biodiversity, 

productivity, and sustainability. 

Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife Species

The ecological approach we adopted for the Multi-Species Framework 

supplements the emphasis on coldwater fish with tools that address 

ecological functions of all wildlife and eventually all fish in the Columbia 

Basin. The ability to address and describe in a repeatable way ecological 

functions of all vertebrates (including humans), using a common database, 

is a new approach to broad-scale resource assessment presented by the 

Multi-Species Framework. 

The term key ecological functions (KEFs) of wildlife refers to the principal 

set of ecological roles performed by each species in its ecosystem (Marcot 

and Vander Heyden, 2001). KEFs refer to the main ways organisms use, 

influence, and alter their biotic and abiotic environments. “Key” refers to 

the main roles played by each species. Categories of KEFs can be depicted 

for each species and used in multiple-species analyses of alternatives for 

land management in the Columbia River Basin. 

One major assumption on this analysis is that wildlife KEFs contribute to 

and affect ecosystem biodiversity, productivity, and resource-use 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-20

sustainability (BPS). Another assumption is that the parameters of BPS 

describe ecosystem integrity, the maintenance or restoration of which, we 

presume, can be one prime goal of ecosystem management. The purpose 

of tracking wildlife KEFs, including their patterns and changes, therefore, 

is to determine how management actions might affect wildlife, the biotic 

functioning of ecosystems, and ecosystem BPS. It serves as a way to 

measure the degree to which ecosystem management goals are met for 

maintaining or restoring at least some facets of ecosystem integrity.

We measure changes in wildlife KEFs in several ways, including historic 

and current patterns of, and future potential changes in: (1) the 

distribution and abundance of species, based on their habitat associations, 

that perform particular ecological roles (that is, that are coded for 

particular KEF categories); (2) Functional redundancy of KEF categories; 

and (3) The richness and diversity of KEF categories that ecological 

communities can support. Functional redundancy refers to the number of 

species performing a particular KEF category. As stated by Marcot and 

Vander Heyden (2001), the basic premise is that functionally redundant, 

rich, and diverse communities may be more resistant or resilient to 

adverse disturbances (MacNally 1995, Naeem 1998, Rastetter et al. 1999) 

and can more consistently support greater levels of biodiversity (Jaksic et 

al., 1996 Walker 1992) than can less functionally redundant, rich, or 

diverse communities. 

Marcot and Vander Heyden (2001) noted that ecological implications of 

functional patterns of species and communities, and their influence on 

BPS, can be taken as testable hypotheses about the roles of wildlife and 

how ecosystems work. They listed several key such hypotheses, with 

perhaps the most important ones for the current work being:

1. Functional redundancy imparts community resilience: for a particular 

function, the higher the functional redundancy, the greater ability of 

the community to resist stresses put on that function.

2. The greater the functional redundancy, the more sustainable is the set 

of resources that the function provides. 

3. The more functionally rich and diverse a community, the greater is its 

natural productivity and its native biodiversity.

Over time, such hypotheses could be tested in the context of adaptive 

management by comparing performance of BPS over time or among areas 

managed differently. 

Collectively, the methods we used provide a means of determining the 

degree to which an ecosystem is “fully functional,” by comparing historic, 

current, and potential future KEF conditions. Fully functional ecosystems 

are those that have the full set of historic KEF categories, and the historic 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-21

patterns of functional redundancy for each KEF category.

Other functional aspects include determining: (1) Functional richness, 

which is the number of KEF categories performed by species in a 

community, (2) Total functional diversity, which is functional richness 

weighted by functional redundancy (Brown 1995), analogous to species 

diversity, and (3) Functional web, which is the full array of all KEFs 

associated with a set of species that may be specified by some habitat 

element or structure (Marcot and Vander Heyden 2001). Because many 

functions can extend beyond a habitat element or structure, functions that 

are supported in part by specific KECs can influence parts of the 

ecosystem well beyond those KECs. For example, the ecological functions 

provided by beaver extend well beyond the confines of the KEC of water 

depth (Schlosser and Kallemeyn 2000).

Validation Steps

Scientific and common names and species occurrence status, by state, 

were reviewed by Dick Johnson (Washington State University), B. J. Verts 

(Oregon State University), Tom O’Neil (Northwest Habitat Institute), Rolf 

Johnson (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW]), Derek 

Stinson (WDFW), Kelly Bettinger (WDFW), Charlie Bruce (Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW]), Kelly McAllister (WDFW), 

Bruce Mate (Oregon State University Marine Science Lab), Steven Jeffries 

(WDFW), and Robin Brown (ODFW). Taxonomic order follows regional 

publications or commonly accepted national books to facilitate crossreferencing. 

The Species Habitat Project (SHP) assigned five occurrence status 

categories to each wildlife species in the SHP database: occurs, accidental, 

introduced, reintroduced, and extirpated; the species could be listed as any 

one of these categories in any state within the basin (Johnson and O’Neil 

2001). Occurs means >15 documented observations, that is, they are 

considered to be common species for the area. Some species listed as 

“occurs” do not have 15 records in recent decades, so there are species 

listed that were formerly more abundant, but now may be considered rare 

(like the short-tailed albatross). This figure of 15 documented 

observations was derived from its use in the states’ ornithological groups, 

such as the Oregon Field Ornithologists. Accidental denotes those species 

with <15 documented occurrences, or >15 records but the Columbia Basin 

is not a regular part of the species’ range. Introduced denotes species that 

are not native (that is, that likely did not occur before European 

settlement) but that now breed in the Columbia Basin. Reintroduced

denotes native species that were eliminated from the Columbia Basin or 
Section III.B — Methods, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / Page 3.B-22

reduced to such low population levels that additional individuals were 

required to supplement or re-establish the species. Extirpated refers to a 

native species whose originally native populations have been completely 

extirpated from the Columbia Basin.

Three categories were used to describe the breeding status of the species. 

Breeds is for those species with >5 documented breeding records by 

separate pairs unless professionals familiar with the species believed that 

breeding is probable but has not yet been documented. Non-breeder refers

to those species that occur in the state(s) but do not breed, or have <5 

documented breeding records. Bred-Historically refers to those species that 

used to breed in the state(s) but currently do not.

NHI did the alternative strategies analysis for the black bear and bald 

eagle using basin-wide species distribution maps. NHI used data from 

previous inventories or studies to validate these basin range maps. For 

example, 29 years of bald eagle inventory data helped determine which 6th

HUCs should be a part of the bald eagle’s basin-wide range. With black 

bear, the radio locations from a 3-year study in the Central Cascades of 

Oregon helped clarify the Habitat Condition Index by comparing NHI’s 

black bear distribution map with that from the study. Additionally, 

species range information from Idaho, Oregon, Western Montana, and 

Washington further helped with the validation of NHI’s distribution maps 

of bald eagle and black bear by comparing the maps with the Habitat 

Condition Index model’s ranges. Our last review for accuracy compares 

differences between species ranges in the literature with known 

occurrence of suitable habitat. The databases and analyses of wildlife 

KEFs were not validated; nor were the patterns of community function 

resulting from our Ecological Functions Analysis. Clearly, work remains 

to better quantify the ecological roles of wildlife, how those roles affect 

BPS, and how management actions affect the functioning of communities. 
Section III.C — Methods, Ecological Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.C-1

METHODS - ECOLOGICAL INTEGRATION

The summary is organized as follows:

Integrating Assessments of Fish and Wildlife Populations and Ecological 

Functions

Influence of Habitats on Populations and Functions

Influence of Populations on Themselves

Influence of Populations on Other Populations

Influence of Populations on Habitats and KECs

Influence of Planning Alternatives and Management Activities on 

Habitats

Changes through Space and Time

Integrating Assessments of Fish and Wildlife Populations and 

Ecological Functions

The scientific principals of the Multi-Species Framework assessment process 

call for an analysis of fish, wildlife, and their ecological functions for 

evaluating alternative strategies for managing natural resources in the 

Columbia Basin. The following sections present methods of the assessments 

of what we are calling the Ecological Functions Analysis. The Ecological 

Functions Analysis provides a method by which ecological functions of fish 

and wildlife can be assessed individually and jointly.

There are many possible means by which fish and wildlife populations can 

interact, and how such interactions can vary geographically and over time. 

The purpose of the integrated fish-wildlife analysis is to provide a basis for 

determining if and how management activities associated with basin-wide 

planning alternatives significantly influence ecological interactions between 

fish and wildlife, and the implications of such interactions on ecosystem 

biodiversity, productivity, and sustainability. 

The components of the Ecological Functions Analysis are shown in a diagram 

depicting the major categories of fish-wildlife interactions that we considered 

(Figure III.C.1). This figure lists the following section headings representing 

each type of interaction. 

Section III.C — Methods, Ecological Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.C-2

Influence of Habitats on Populations and Functions

Integrating fish and wildlife information requires coordination of methods, 

data sets, and terminology used to evaluate fish species, wildlife species, and 

their ecological functions. The first step to relate terminology used by fish 

and wildlife biologists is to describe habitat. Table III.C.1 lists the KECs 

(habitat elements) that are used in the SHP database to define wildlife habitat 

elements. Table III.C.2 lists EDT Level 2 Habitat Attributes for fish and 

shows how the fish habitat attributes relate (i.e., crosswalk) to wildlife KECs. 

This fundamental coordination of habitat language allows fish and wildlife 

biologists to describe, in a common language, how management alternatives 

can influence habitat. 

In addition, the common language helps both wildlife and fish managers use 

the SHP database that depicts which KECs are potentially influenced by 

categories of strategies that collectively capture alternatives assessed in this 

report. A Management Activities database in the SHP can, in future analyses, 

be used by managers to help do impact assessments of management activities 

on KECs for wildlife and on EDT Level 2 habitat attributes for fish. For 

example, strategies that are described by a suite of standardized management 

activities (in the SHP database) can be associated with changes in all KECs 

(“habitat elements” in the SHP database) as depicted, to be influenced by 

those activities. Then, cross-referencing which fish and wildlife species are 

associated with the changed KECs and EDT habitat attributes, and knowing 

the key ecological functions these species provide in the ecosystem, provides 

a basis for linking alternative management strategies with ecological 

functions of both fish and wildlife species. 

The most fundamental interactions we assessed were the influence of habitats 

and key environmental correlates (KECs) on populations of fish and wildlife 

separately, that is, how fish habitats and KECs influence fish populations, and 

how wildlife habitats and KECs influence wildlife populations.

Influence of Fish Habitats and KECs on Fish Populations – Use of EDT

For fish, analyzing the influence of fish habitats and KECs on fish populations 

entailed use of the EDT model. This methodology is discussed more fully in 

the section on Fish-Methods of this report. 

Influence of Wildlife Habitats and KECs on Wildlife Populations and Functions –

Use of SHP

For wildlife, analyzing the influence of wildlife habitats and KECs on wildlife 

populations entailed use of the Species Habitat Project (SHP) database to 

evaluate potential presence by 6th HUC of wildlife species given the presence 

of wildlife habitats and KECs. The broad-scale, basin-wide nature of the 

current work, however, focused on the wildlife-habitat types, but neither 
Number KEC Definition

1.1.1.2 down wood in riparian areas direct use during overbank floods; 

recruitment from riparian to channel over time; role of wood in 

shaping channel structure

2.1.2.1 predation introduced fishes prey on juvenile salmon in freshwater (e.g., 

walleye, smallmouth bass)

2.1.2.2 direct displacement competitive exclusion from foraging or reproductive habitat 

(e.g., smallmouth bass in tributaries)

2.1.2.4 other disease originating from introduced fishes

2.2.1 mountain pine beetle positive relation--down wood recruitment

2.2.2 spruce budworm recruitment positive relation--direct food source and down wood

2.2.3 gypsy moth recruitment positive relation--direct food source and down wood

2.3 beaver/muskrat activity positive provides habitat structure short & long term

2.4 burrows positive provides habitat structure short & long term

4.1.1 dissolved oxygen positive relation--strict requirements

4.1.2 water depth positive association with deeper waters

4.1.3 dissolved solids association with high-to-intermediate values

4.1.4 water pH association with intermediate values

4.1.5 water temperature negative--requirement & association with coldest available 

waters

4.1.6 water velocity association with intermediate values

4.1.7 water turbidity negative--growth and survival decline as function of 

concentration and duration

4.1.8 free water (derived from any source) positive

4.1.9 salinity and alkalinity association with high-to-intermediate values

4.2.1 oxbows positive--preferred habitat for rearing stages

4.2.2.1 intermittent occasional use but overall negative association

4.2.2.2 upper perennial positive--frequent use

4.2.2.3 lower perennial positive--heaviest use

4.2.3.1 open water zone positive seasonal heavy use

4.2.3.2 submerged/benthic positive seasonal heavy use

4.2.3.3 splash zone/periodically flooded positive seasonal heavy use (during peak flows)

4.2.4.1 rocks positive association 

4.2.4.2 cobble/grave strong positive association all life stages

4.2.4.3 sand/mud generally negative association most life stages

4.2.5.1 submergent vegetation occasional positive association

4.2.5.2 emergent vegetation occasional positive association

4.2.6 coarse woody debris in streams and 

rivers 

positive association (cover, food supply, habitat-shaping 

element)

4.2.7 pools positive association (cover, etc)

4.2.8 riffles generally negative association

4.2.9 runs/glides positive association

4.2.10 overhanging vegetation positive: cover, food source, indicator for complex, stable 

channels

4.2.11 waterfalls negative -- movement barriers

4.2.13 seeps or springs strong positive association in most life stages

4.6 lakes/ponds/reservoirs weak positive association

4.6.1.1 open water zone use by some life stages

4.6.1.2 submerged/benthic use by some life stages

4.6.1.3 splash zone/periodically flooded use by some life stages

Table III.C.1
4.6.2.1 rocks use by some life stages

4.6.2.2 cobble/gravel use by some life stages

4.6.4.1 ponds (<2 ha) use by juvenile rearing life stages

4.6.4.1 lakes (>2 ha) use by juvenile rearing life stages

4.7.1 riverine wetlands use by juvenile rearing life stages

4.7.2.1 forest use by juvenile rearing life stages

4.7.2.2 non-forest use by juvenile rearing life stages

4.9 seasonal flooding use by juvenile rearing life stages

5.1.3 nearshore subtidal use by all marine life stages

5.1.4 pelagic use by all marine life stages

5.3.1 protected use by all marine life stages

5.3.2 semi-protected use by all marine life stages

5.3.3 partially exposed use by all marine life stages

5.4.2 kelp use by all marine life stages

5.5.1.1 fronts (e.g. tide rips and confluence 

zones)

use by all marine life stages

5.5.2 euphotic zone use by all marine life stages (visual foragers)

5.6 water temperature negative (prosper in coldest conditions)

5.8.4 delta positive association (food supply, physiological transition 

zone)

5.8.6 lagoon positive association (food supply, physiological transition 

zone)

5.8.7 salt marsh positive association (food supply, physiological transition 

zone)

5.8.8 reef positive association (food supply, physiological transition 

zone)

5.8.9 tidal flat positive association (food supply, physiological transition 

zone)

8.5 diseases transmitted by domestic 

animals

negative effect of hatchery-origin fish and aquaculture 

facilities

8.12.1 herbicides/fungicides negative effect-high sensitivity to low exposures (lethal and 

sublethal effects documented)

8.12.2 insecticides negative effect-high sensitivity to low exposures (lethal and 

sublethal effects documented)

8.12.3 pesticides negative effect-high sensitivity to low exposures (lethal and 

sublethal effects documented)

8.12.4 fertilizer negative effect through toxicity or through eutrophication

8.16 culverts negative -- partial or complete migration barriers

8.17 irrigation ditches negative -- movement barriers, mortality sinks

8.19.3 water pollution negative -- manifold effects on survival/growth/behavior

8.22 bulkheads, seawalls, revetment generally negative, simplifies habitat structure

8.23 jetties, groins, breakwaters generally negative, simplifies habitat structure

8.24 water diversion structures negative, movement barrier population sinks

8.28 hatchery fish releases generally negative, adverse effects on growth, survival, 

behavior, and genetic basis for local adaptation, and often 

stimulates predation pressure

** Source: C. Frissell, pers. Comm.

* Number codes refer to the classification system for KEFs or key ecological functions, as shown in Table 1 - 

Section 3.3

Table III.C.1
Table III.C.2 Management Activities linked to KECs.

I. FIRE MANAGEMENT

A. Suppressing wildfire

B. Low to moderate intensity burns

C. High intensity burns

D. Fire (in general)

II. FRESHWATER WETLAND, RIPARIAN, AND AQUATIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

A. Creating and maintaining impoundments

B. Controlling water levels

C. Creating/maintaining islands or rafts within impoundments

D. Draining wetlands, marshes, ponds, lakes

E. Increasing water supply

F. Decreasing water supply

G. Burning wetlands to maintain successional stages

H. Restoration of wetlands

I. Wetland management techniques

J. Flooding fields and wetlands

K. Removing riparian vegetation

L. Livestock grazing of riparian areas

M. Adding coarse woody debris and boulders to streams and rivers

N. Removing coarse woody debris from streams and rivers

O. Restoring/maintaining beaver populations

P. Retaining riparian buffer strips

Q. Armoring banks for erosion control

R. Controlling sedimentation by revegetation of banks with grass-sedge-forb mixtures

S. Controlling water pollution

T. Disposing/assimilating wastewater

U. Dredging

V. Locating/constructing stream crossings

W. Controlling aquatic plants

X. Chanelization

III. ROAD MANAGEMENT

A. Road construction and obliteration

B. Operational aspects of road maintenance and use

C. Road closures

D. Bridges (in general)

E. Roads (in general)

IV. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES

A. Applying fertilizers

B. Applying pesticides

C. Applying herbicides

D. Applying fungicides

E. Haying/mowing

F. Maintaining grasses and forbs within orchards, Christmas tree farms vineyards etc.

G. providing/maintaining vegetation along field and ditch margins

H. Retaining crop residue

I. Implementing farmland conservation programs

J. Irrigating
K. Altering drainage

L. Decreasing water supply - flow withdrawal

M. No-till farming/minimum till farming

N. Clean farming

O. Strip intercropping 

P. Conversion of native habitats

Q. Control of vertebrates considered to be agricultural pests

R. Providing artificial nesting sites

S. Agriculture (in general)

V. SHRUBLAND AND GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT

A. Mechanical vegetation management

B. Burning

C. Using herbicides

D. Restoration

E. Conversion of shrubland to native or non-native grassland

F. Livestock grazing

G. Shrubland management (in general)

H. Grassland management (in general)

VI. LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT

A. Livestock grazing

B. conversion of shrubland to native or non-native grassland

C. Creating or providing stockponds

D. Excluding livestock from riparian areas

VII. FENCING

A. Fencing to control or direct wildlife access

B. Fencing to product or restore habitat

C. Fencing to excluding livestock from riparian areas

VIII. MINING ACTIVITIES

A. Site reclamation

B. Surface/strip mining and processing

C. Underground mining and processing

D. Maintaining access to abandoned subsurface mines and tunnels

E. Placer prospecting and mining

F. Mineral exploration

G. Sand/gravel (aggregate) and peat mining

H. Mining (in general)

I. Mining activities involving blasting

J. Oil and gas extraction

IX. FOREST MANAGEMENT

A. Harvest Operation Activities:

1. Clearcutting

2. Shelterwood cuts

3. Seed tree cuts

4. Group selection

5. Selective harvest across all tree sizes

6. Selective harvest of specific sizes or conditions or species

B. Silvicultura/Stand Improvement Activities:
1. Pre-commercial thinning

2. Commercial thinning

3. Pruning

4. Simplifying species composition and/or structure

5. Type conversion

6. Prescribed burning

7. Applying insecticides

8. Forest management (in general)

C. Site prep/Tree Establishment Activities

1. Applying herbicides

2. Fertilizing plantation

3. Removing slash

4. Planting or seeding for reforestation

5. Tilling prior to planting

D. Habitat Management Activities

1. Maintaining mature/old growth

2. Grazing livestock

3. Retaining medium-sized green trees

4. Retaining large green trees

5. Retaining trees with defects

6. Creating/maintaining edges

7. Retaining mast trees

8. Retaining forest openings

9. Developing/maintaining brush/slash piles

10. Retaining/providing dead/down wood

11. Retaining/creating snags

12. Retaining riparian buffers

13. Providing artificial nest sites

14. Creating/maintaining corridors

E. Incidental Activities:

1. Introducing exotic vegetation

2. Creating water sources

3. Removing hazard tries

4. Building skid roads and landings

5. rest vertebrate pest control

F. Special Forest Products

1. Firewood cutting

2. Harvesting wild mushrooms

3. Bough collection

4. Special forest products (in general)

X. MARINE ACTIVITIES

A. Marine dredging and filling

B. Harbor, marina, and ferry terminal development

C. Residential docks in marine and freshwaters

D. Toxic spills in fresh and saltwater

E. Marine shoreline armoring

F. Developing underwater marine structures

G. Marine fisheries

H. Aquaculture

XI. URBAN DEVELOPMENT
A. Paving

B. Building houses and businesses

C. Owning domestic animals

D. Urban aquatic habitat management

E. Landscaping and vegetation management

F. Water quality and stormwater management

G. Establishing/maintaining greenways/greenbelts

XII. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

A. Trail use and camping

B. Snowshoeing/snow skiing/sledding

C. Mountain/rock climbing

D. Motorized boating

E. Non-motorized boating

F. Swimming

G. Off-road driving

H. Snowmobiling

I. Aircraft use

J. Recreational developments

XIII. RIGHT-of-WAY MANAGEMENT

A. Utility Corridors

Table III.C.2 Management Activities linked to KECs.
Section III.C — Methods, Ecological Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.C-3

their structural conditions nor the presence of specific KECs. Such refinement 

is left to the next step in which more spatially-refined subbasin analyses are 

conducted.

To evaluate potential occurrence of ecological functions by 6th HUC, we 

linked wildlife species (predicted present based on their wildlife habitat 

associations) to their KEF categories to determine which functions could be 

provided. This database query listed the number of wildlife species 

(functional redundancy) for each combination of KEF category and wildlife 

habitat type, occurring within each 6th HUC. We used the percent of each 6th

HUC occurring in each wildlife habitat type as a weighting factor for 

functional redundancy, for each KEF category, thereby calculating a 6th HUCwide weighted estimate of functional redundancy for each KEF category. It 

was this weighted value of KEF functional redundancy that we then used for 

mapping KEF functional redundancy conditions for historic, current, and 

future states, and for mapping changes in such conditions among time 

periods. 

Although the resolution of these maps was the 6th HUC level, we strongly 

suggest viewing results at larger geographic areas, such as province and 

basin-wide levels. Also, at the finer, subbasin scale, incorporation of KECs 

and structural conditions of wildlife habitats would greatly help refine this 

functional analysis by providing a more precise description of environmental 

conditions by which to predict species presence.

Influence of Fish Habitats and KECs on Wildlife Populations

A number of wildlife species are associated with aquatic and riparian habitats 

and KECs that influence fish. Examples include most amphibian species, 

marine and freshwater aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals (such as whales, 

mink, and river otter), and many aquatic and semi-aquatic birds (such as 

many shorebirds, ducks, geese, and others) that feed on aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. For instance, the SHP database, in fact, lists 135 wildlife 

species that associate with some type of freshwater riparian or aquatic body, 

and that feed on freshwater aquatic macroinvertebrates. Other wildlife 

species also influenced by fish KECs include wildlife species associated with 

flowing streams, stream temperature, stream and lake substrates, 

macrophytes and submergent vegetation, and other environmental factors. 

The main purpose of highlighting this type of interaction is to be able to list 

wildlife species potentially benefited when providing for fish habitat 

conditions. Ultimately, we propose depicting habitat types, habitat 

structures, and key environmental correlates jointly for fish and wildlife 

under a combined classification system. 
Section III.C — Methods, Ecological Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.C-4

KECs (Habitat Elements) Shared by Fish and Wildlife 

Managers of natural resources in the Columbia Basin have recently been 

discussing the need to incorporate fish and wildlife habitat components into a 

common format for evaluation or assessment. We address this need by using 

the KECs (habitat elements) as a basis to integrate our depiction of fish and 

wildlife habitat components. The process of combining fish habitat attributes 

into the list of wildlife KECs has been started for Chinook salmon and bull 

trout. Fisheries ecologists in the EWG identified 74 KECs used by various life 

history stages (Table III.C.1). This was a pilot effort to demonstrate the 

feasibility of bringing fish and wildlife habitat information together. 

Proposed Framework efforts include efforts to expand this work by 

identifying KECs of all resident and anadromous fish species in the Columbia 

Basin by various life stages.

Once the list of KECs is expanded to include additional species of fish, then 

managers will be able to evaluate management strategies using a common set 

of variables for fish and wildlife. While this is seemingly a small step 

forward, it allows managers to determine how proposed land management 

activities, under a specific planning alternative, can affect the KECs listed in 

Table III.C.1 and thereby influence both salmon and wildlife associated with 

those elements. We demonstrated this assessment approach by querying 

databases listing management activities (Table III.C.2) associated with a given 

management activities or alternative strategy. We then listed KECs influenced 

by those management activities, and then we identified which species of fish 

and wildlife are associated with those KECs. Once knowing which species 

are involved, the key ecological functions (KEFs) for fish and wildlife can be 

jointly assessed. In this way, ecosystem functional diversity and functional 

redundancy can be described for all vertebrate species in the basin in a 

common assessment.

Influence of Populations on Themselves

In some cases, fish or wildlife populations can have an influence on 

themselves. Such influence can take the form of density-dependent 

demographic relations as are depicted in traditional Ricker recruitment 

curves or Beverton-Holt functions. The wildlife analogue to this is found in 

population models represented by logistic equations, in which changes in 

population size occur as a function of population carrying capacity. Other 

influences may manifest through the effects of functional roles (KEFs) on 

habitat attributes and conditions, such as salmon changing the substrate 

structure of spawning gravel and thereby altering the capacity of the 

environment for spawning. Although we have not specifically modeled such 

within-species effects, they nonetheless might prove salient in some cases, 

and are worth noting.
Section III.C — Methods, Ecological Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.C-5

Influence of Populations on Other Populations

Another class of interactions between fish and wildlife populations is how 

organisms can affect other species directly. Examples include predator-prey 

relations and competition for resources or space. 

Influence of Fish Populations on Wildlife Populations

One of the major ways that fish populations can directly influence wildlife 

populations is through wildlife predation on fish, that is, as fish serving as 

prey for wildlife. We analyzed this in two ways: general patterns of wildlife 

predation on salmon, and wildlife species-specific use of salmon carcasses as 

an example of a more in-depth type of wildlife population analysis that can 

be done. The focus here is on affects on (benefits to) wildlife.

We analyzed how each of five salmon life stages serves as potential food for 

wildlife species. The SHP database depicts use of salmon life stages 

according to combinations of the six degrees of association (strong and 

consistent, recurrent, indirect, rare, unknown, and no relationship) and the 

five salmon live stages. We tallied number of wildlife species according to 

combinations of association and stage. Some wildlife species may have 

different degrees of association with different salmon life stages, and feed on 

more than one salmon life stage. 

Influence of Wildlife Populations on Fish Populations

In some cases, wildlife populations might directly affect fish (salmon) 

populations through predation. Examples may include predation on rearing 

and saltwater stages of salmon by Caspian terns. In many cases, actual effect 

on fish population size, trends, and vital rates from such predation is 

unknown and unstudied, although such effects are sometimes viewed as 

important.

Recently, a comprehensive effort was undertaken to determine what wildlife 

species in Oregon and Washington have a relationship with salmon. A 

literature review conducted on this topic indicated a general lack of 

information on the relationship between the 605 species of wildlife that occur 

in the region and their use of salmon. Wildlife and fish species experts were 

contacted to address this lack of published knowledge about salmon use by 

wildlife. These experts were asked to address use of the five life stages of 

salmon as providing direct or indirect forage for wildlife species occurring in 

terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine, or marine environments. The life stages 

include incubation (eggs and alevin), freshwater rearing (fry, fingerling, parr), 

saltwater (smolts, immature adults, adults), spawning (adults), and carcasses. 

The strength of the relationships were also identified and classified as: strong 

and consistent, recurrent, indirect, rare, unknown, and no relationship. The 

results from the comprehensive effort are reported in Cederholm et al. (2000).
Section III.C — Methods, Ecological Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.C-6

Future evaluation of fish and wildlife interactions will build on the 

relationships documented in Cederholm et al. (2000). We anticipate that 

future reports will discuss: disease transmission between fish and wildlife; 

fish-fish interactions (e.g., salmon subject to predation by small mouth bass) 

that could influence wildlife; fish habitat influences on wildlife; wildlife 

functions that influence habitat of fish; and wildlife functions that are affected 

by salmon predation. 

Influence of Populations on Habitats and KECs

Another type of interaction influence is that of how the ecological roles of 

organisms might alter KECs and habitat elements of other species. This 

includes how fish can alter KECs for other fish, and how wildlife can alter 

KECs for fish. Other combinations are also possible, but we considered these 

as the most salient for broad-scale interpretation.

Influence of Fish Populations and KEFs on Fish Habitats and KECs

The behavior of some fish might influence the habitats and KECs of other fish 

species. One example is how bottom-dwelling and –feeding fish such as carp 

can roil the substrate, reducing capability of the environment to support other 

organisms such as rooted submergent vegetation along with the attendant 

aquatic macroinvertebrates such vegetation can support. In turn, other 

invertebrate-feeding fish species may become reduced as well. Bottom 

roiling can also directly change the physical texture, potentially reducing 

spawning or feeding substrates for other species. Other fish-KEC interactions 

also likely occur.

Influence of Wildlife Populations and KEFs on Fish Habitats and KECs

In some cases, the ecological roles of wildlife organisms can influence habitat 

elements and KECs for fish. We are exploring this type of relation in greater 

detail, as it may provide to be a salient basis for an integrated approach to 

fish and wildlife habitat management. 

One example is how some wildlife species might change the riparian and 

aquatic environments, altering specific KECs for fish such as salmon. For 

instance, American beaver, nutria, and several other wildlife species have the 

ecological role of creating aquatic structures, such as dams and lodges, which 

can alter stream flow and change stream morphology and stream substrates. 

In particular such changes might serve to alter several KECs of importance to 

salmon, notably degree of gravel embeddedness, temperature spatial 

variation, variation in channel width, and daily variation in stream flow rates. 

These are fish KECs recognized in the EDT model as of particular importance 

to salmon. A number of other wildlife KEFs and relations to fish KECs can be 

identified using the SHP database.
Section III.C — Methods, Ecological Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.C-7

Although our broad-scale modeling does not yet quantitatively integrate such 

wildlife influences on fish KECs, our analysis sets the stage for such 

consideration and analysis at finer levels of spatial resolution. To this end, 

we have crafted an operational prototype of a Bayesian belief network to 

exemplify how such effects can be modeled, using the example discussed 

above (Figure III.C.2). 

Influence of Planning Alternatives and Management Activities on 

Habitats

The major way in which management activities can influence fish and 

wildlife, as considered in this report, is through their effects on fish and 

wildlife habitats and KECs. Such effects can be depicted by using the SHP 

databases and EDT models. For example, we listed the wildlife KECs 

pertaining to species that can have major influence on fish KECs, and then 

determined the set of management activity categories that could influence 

such wildlife KECs. In this way, we can provide general information on 

which categories of management activities might have the greatest influence 

on the largest number of wildlife and fish KECs that, in turn, can have 

various interaction influences.

Changes through Space and Time

Finally, all the above influences and interactions should be viewed as 

potentially changing through space and time. Changes through space entails 

knowing how conditions in one location directly or indirectly cause changes 

in other locations, such as downstream effects of upstream changes in upland 

and riparian vegetation cover. At present, our Framework analysis deals 

with such effects either not at all, as with our wildlife habitat and functional 

analyses, or only indirectly, as with the EDT modeling analyses.

Modeling time-dynamic changes is difficult and for this broad-scale 

Framework we have focused on three time periods: the historic condition 

(roughly indicating potential historic conditions), the current condition, and 

future potential conditions under each of the three scenarios we explored. As 

the Framework is applied to more local scales, analyses should be run to 

determine some transition periods among these three major conditions as 

well.

Section III.D — Methods, Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-1

METHODS - ADDRESSING UNCERTAINTY

This section of the Methods addresses uncertainty; it is organized as 

follows:

Uncertainty and Use of a Scientific Approach

Uncertainty as Handled in this Report

Worldviews

Uncertainty and use of a Scientific Approach

The Framework utilizes two streams of science (sensu Holling 1996). The 

first stream (reductionist) is a science of parts whereby specific 

experiments are conducted to assess specific questions and processes that 

effect specific variables and to address null hypotheses with “either/or” 

outcomes. Information from this level is used (when data are available) to 

describe the ecological attributes (i.e., key environmental correlates) and 

change/trends in the Columbia Basin. The goal of this level of science is 

to narrow (e.g., using brief time frames and small areas) the focus of the 

experiments and resulting information to the point that uncertainty is 

reduced to an acceptable level and that most peers will agree on the 

resulting conclusions. A problem with using this focused approach 

within an ecological context is that once a piece (i.e., small area within the 

basin) is pulled out and studied and null hypotheses accepted or rejected, 

there is a tendency to extrapolate the findings to the entire basin without 

integrating findings from adjacent small areas. 

The second stream of science used in the Framework is the integration of 

parts (Holling 1996). Scientific evaluation at this level occurs not by 

conducting specific experiments but by synthesizing information from 

unplanned as well as planned interventions in the whole system or by 

comparing and contrasting extreme examples. Challenges by peers are 

important at each step of the process (agreement among peers is probably 

the exception rather than the rule). These challenges are based on 

multiple lines of evidence (versus experimental results). 

The purpose for using the second stream of science in the Framework 

process is to gain a basic understanding of how the ecological system 
Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-2

functions and how it might respond to proposed alternatives. These are 

difficult to impossible to fully analyze for the entire array of environments 

in the Columbia Basin using only traditional experimental approaches. 

These two streams of science relate across spatial scales (Figure III.D.1). 

The reductionist approach to science is practiced at the 6-HUC or smaller 

area. At this scale, environmental attribute data are most often described 

with a variance term using conventional statistical tools. Due to an initial 

lack of data (much less variance of data) across the basin, analyses are (at 

first) deterministic. The holistic approach of the second stream of science 

integrates information across landscapes, land ownerships, and subbasins, 

up to the basin or province, and synthesizes information from different 

sources, experts, and studies, where available. The second stream of 

science addresses questions and hypotheses that are related to patterns 

across the basin or province (e.g., how much habitat enhancement is 

required to improve chinook productivity at the province level by 10 

percent?).

The Framework does not solely follow either stream of science. It is 

conceived and designed to address questions across the hierarchical levels 

simultaneously, so that knowledge of, and actions pertaining to, each level 

in the hierarchy is used in context of other levels. Thus data collection and 

analysis methods are coordinated with levels above and below. The 

process of coordinating data, analysis rules and language across levels is 

difficult. Resolving these difficulties takes time and effort to communicate. 

There are many possible benefits for addressing these difficulties. The 

benefits of taking an adaptive assessment approach to solve these 

difficulties (as illustrated in Figure III.D.1) are: (1) Increased system 

understanding passing through to the lower levels of the hierarchy and (2) 

Increased statistical rigor (i.e., attention to bias when estimating 

environmental attributes and to experimental error, sensu Karl et al. 2000) 

when collecting data at specific sites for testing basin-scale questions and 

hypotheses. 

As the Framework is implemented, uncertainty associated with 

environmental parameters can be quantified and estimated as variances in 

their values in specific geographic and ecological contexts. Such estimates 

can be aggregated (i.e., step up the spatial hierarchy) to address 

hypotheses formulated during the Framework analyses presented in this 

report. Understanding of the whole system gained from the first 

Framework analysis will step down to provide an understanding of how 

the fuller system might function at the scale of smaller areas (6-HUCs) of 

the basin. This process of increasing statistical rigor at the basin and 

province scales, and increasing understanding of the system at the 

Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-3

subbasin and 6-HUC scales, actually pertains to many activities that 

improve learning through time. This is part of adaptive management in 

the sense of Holling (1978) and Walters (1997).

Adaptive management in the Framework process addresses uncertainty 

for both levels of science by: (1) Defining questions and goals, (2) Stating 

working hypotheses via working models that clearly articulate 

assumptions and predictions, (3) Implementing management actions and 

research to address uncertainty, by devising management as science 

experiments, and (4) Monitoring and interpreting the results of 

management actions (Figure III.D.2). If this process determines that 

assumptions are met or addressed and world view analyses provide the 

explicit comparisons that contribute to the decision making process, the 

process ends with using the answers to the questions to reaffirm or revise 

current management direction. If monitoring cannot or does not allow 

assumptions to be adequately addressed or if worldview analyses are not 

explicit, re-evaluation will be necessary and one should enter the adaptive 

management evaluation process again (Figure III.D.2). Re-evaluation 

might involve collection of data to address uncertainty associated with 

environmental attributes and Bio-rules, reformulating questions or 

modifying worldviews or alternatives. As the Framework process started 

we, as others (Karieva et al. 2000), realized data was lacking by which to 

parameterize a stochastic model for the whole basin. As a consequence, 

our model runs are designed to be deterministic. Results from our 

deterministic analysis are not meant to appear certain. They are meant to 

be the basis for formulating hypotheses about how the information from 

small 6-HUCs can be integrated to answer holistic questions. 

In summary, we propose, in this Framework, that scientific uncertainty be 

addressed by using an adaptive assessment and management process. 

Uncertainty for both streams of science will be addressed as the 

Framework is applied so that when change is detected at the local level, it 

can be related to and understood in the context of the whole, evaluated, 

and turned into action to evaluate management guidelines designed to 

maintain or restore desirable ecosystem functions.

Uncertainty as Handled in this Report

The Ecological Work Group of the Framework determined that data were 

not available by which to parameterize a stochastic model to assess the 

proposed alternatives at the basin and province levels. The EDT and HCI 

models were run in a deterministic mode and as such do not explicitly 

address uncertainty (variability) for the first stream of science (that 

Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-4

addresses local conditions. Uncertainty for the first stream of science will 

be addressed by incorporating more attention to variance and explicitly 

uncertainty as the Framework process moves forward. Uncertainty 

associated with the second stream of science – that is, uncertainty over 

how the entire system as a whole is thought to function – is addressed for 

each of three Framework alternatives by use of the concept of world 

views. The three Framework alternatives examined in this report describe 

three different future visions (based on three different world views) for 

fish and wildlife management in the Columbia River Basin. The analyses 

of world views pertain to chinook issues and as such do not address 

wildlife and fish/wildlife analyses conducted for the alternative analyses. 

The wildlife analyses at this phase of the Framework are intended to be 

illustrative of how populations and functions could be addressed at the 

subbasin level.

Inherent in each of the world views is a set of assumptions about the way 

the world works. Because our knowledge of these assumptions is 

imperfect, there is uncertainty as to the overall fish and wildlife benefits 

each alternative may provide. 

Our analyses examine the elements of uncertainty and risk by evaluating 

each alternative and determining the maximum benefit and risk resulting 

from its implementation. Benefits and risks vary by world view. 

Maximum benefit is achieved when all of the critical assumptions inherent 

in the world view represent correct guesses about how the biological 

systems truly operate and respond to human activities. The maximum 

risk is the outcome when these same assumptions are all wrong. The 

purpose of this section is to present an assessment of the uncertainty and 

risks inherent in the three alternatives. We describe how the alternatives 

perform under two opposing worldviews, which we refer to as 

Technology Optimistic and Technology Pessimistic. We present a third 

worldview, Moderate, which shows an intermediate position that reflects 

likely outcomes when only a portion of the assumptions inherent in the 

Technology Optimistic and Technology Pessimistic worldviews actually 

represent the true State of Nature (Table III.D.1).

In Table III.D.2 we show how each of the alternatives should perform in 

relation to the worldviews based on the assumptions inherent in each 

alternative. Each of the three alternatives were analyzed under each of 

these three world views, resulting in nine analysis outcomes. The range of 

analysis outcomes represents, in a sense, the spread of expected results 

under the various world views they represent, that is, the uncertainty of 

how the world and its biological systems operate. 
Alternative 2 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

If Technology Optimistic 

worldview is true

Outcome for Alt 2 if 

“TO” is true

Outcome for Alt 5 if 

“TO” is true

Outcome for Alt 6 if 

“TO” is true

If Moderate worldview is 

true

Outcome for Alt 2 if 

“M” is true

Outcome for Alt 5 if 

“M” is true

Outcome for Alt 6 if 

“M” is true

If Technology Pessimistic 

worldview is true

Outcome for Alt 2 if 

“TP” is true

Outcome for Alt 5 if 

“TP” is true

Outcome for Alt 6 if 

“TP” is true

Table III.D.1 Analysis matrix for the three worldviews.
Alternative 2 Alternative 5 Alternative 6

If Technology Optimistic 

Worldview is true

Worst Case Worst Case Best Case

If Moderate Worldview is true Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate

If Technology Pessimistic 

Worldview is true

Best Case Best Case Worst Case

Table III.D.2 Analysis performance matrix for the three alternatives by worldview.
Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-5

Alternative 2 and 5 should perform best under the Technology Pessimistic 

worldview because they depend least on technology for successful 

performance, and Alternative 6 should perform best under the 

Technology Optimistic worldview because it depends most on technology 

for successful performance, where performance refers to future size and 

trend of chinook salmon populations. 

However, our real interest in how we deal with uncertainty lies in how the 

alternatives perform when we guess incorrectly about how the world and 

its biological systems operate. For Alternatives 2 and 5, this occurs when 

we implement either alternative and discover later that the Technology 

Optimistic worldview was more accurate. For Alternative 6, the worstcase scenario results when we implement the alternative and eventually 

determine that the Technology Pessimistic view of the world was more 

accurate. As in life, we would like to choose an option that performs well 

even when we are wrong about a number of key assumptions.

In the following subsection we present the results of the worldview 

analysis. 

Worldviews

The results of the worldview analysis presented in this section show 

chinook production potential (abundance) by alternative and worldview, 

at the basin scale (Figure III.D.3).

• The data presented in III.D.3 show that at the basin level Alternative 2 

might be expected to outperform the other alternatives. 

• As expected, Alternative 2 performs best under the Technology 

Pessimistic worldview and poorest under the Technology Optimistic 

view. However, even under the worst case condition (Technology 

Optimistic) Alternative 2 produces a larger increase in chinook 

abundance than any other alternative (within worldviews). 

• Alternative 2 produces the highest benefits when it is assumed that 

juvenile transportation is ineffective, in-river survival rates are low, 

ocean nearshore survival is high, and hatchery fish fitness and postrelease survival are low.

• Because the increase in chinook abundance for Alternative 2, under the

worst case scenario is greater than the best-case scenario for the other 

alternatives, there is less risk and uncertainty associated with the 

selection of this alternative (at least with regard to producing more 

Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-6

chinook). Under the best-case scenario (all assumptions are true) 

chinook abundance may increase by as much as 381 percent; under the 

worst case, 164 percent.

• The cost of implementing Alternative 2 has been estimated at ~$765 

million a year. In contrast, the cost of implementing Alternative 5 and

Alternative 6 has been estimated at $390 million and $210 million, 

respectively. Thus, to reduce uncertainty to the level shown for 

Alternative 2, the region must pay an additional $375–$555 million a 

year (CH2Mhill 2000). 

• Note that all of the alternatives, regardless of worldview, increase 

overall chinook abundance by more than ~107 percent. Therefore, the 

implementation of any of the alternatives should result in a significant 

increase in chinook production over current. In the figures below we 

show that some alternatives achieve the increase through actions that 

emphasize natural production (Alternative 2); others through the use 

of hatcheries (Alternatives 5 and 6).

• Alternative 5 improves chinook production potential from 114 percent 

(Technology Optimistic) to 216 percent (Technology Pessimistic). This 

alternative performs best when it is assumed that transportation is 

relatively ineffective, in-river juvenile survival is low, nearshore ocean 

survival rates are high, and habitat restoration actions in the tributaries 

are effective. In fact, Alternative 5 requires the largest increase in 

freshwater habitat productivity of all the alternatives to produce the 

number of chinook shown in Figure III.D.3.

• Because dams are not removed in Alternative 5, the juvenile 

transportation program eliminated during the early spring and 

summer could be revived if research confirmed transportation survival 

benefits. This flexibility reduces the risk associated with guessing 

wrong about the transportation assumption (i.e. ineffective). 

• Alternative 6 improves chinook performance by 107 percent 

(Technology Pessimistic) to 122 percent (Technology Optimistic). 

Alternative 6 is therefore relatively insensitive to the assumptions 

included in the worldviews. Most of the chinook production increase 

in this alternative is a result of improvements made in tributary habitat 

and hatchery fish fitness.

• Alternative 6 performs best when it is assumed that transportation is 

effective, ocean nearshore survival is low, hatchery fish fitness is high 

and habitat actions focused on the tributaries are effective in increasing 

freshwater productivity. In short, Alternative 6 assumes that we have, 

for the most part, mitigated for hydro impacts through transportation 
Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-7

and juvenile bypass facilities, and therefore efforts should now be 

focused on improving tributary habitat.

• Alternative 6 relies on the least amount of improvement in freshwater 

habitat productivity to achieve its objectives. Thus, there is less risk 

associated with Alternative 6 in regards to meeting the habitat goals 

embedded in the alternative in comparison to the others.

• The transportation program could be eliminated in Alternative 6 if 

research shows this program to be ineffective. This flexibility reduces 

the risk of guessing incorrectly about the effectiveness of the 

transportation program.

• It should be noted that in all of the alternatives it is assumed that the 

actions were implemented as designed. This means that dams can be 

removed and habitat can be improved, in some cases dramatically on 

both public and private lands. There is considerable risk that in the 

non-modeling world (i.e. real world) that some actions may be 

politically impossible to implement or, over time, become socially 

unacceptable. Thus, attempting to implement an alternative that 

requires significant social change may pose greater risk than one that 

does not.

The data in Figure III.D.3 show the percent increase over current in 

chinook production potential for each of the alternatives. For clarity sake, 

we also present the estimated number of adult chinook produced by 

alternative and worldview in Figure III.D.4. From the data in Figure 

III.D.3 we conclude:

• Total chinook production potential is less than 1,000,000 adults for all 

alternatives under all worldviews.

• Under their respective best case scenarios Alternatives 2, 5, and 6 

produce 992,000 728,000, and 755,000 chinook adults, respectively. In 

the worst case scenarios, Alternative 2, 5 and 6 chinook production 

decreases to 898,000, 652,000 and 428,000 chinook, respectively. The 

point to be made is that the difference between the best case 

(Alternative 2) and worst case (Alternative 6) is approximately 564,000 

adults. This defines the maximum reward possible for choosing the 

right alternative and State of Nature. Because there is good deal of 

uncertainty around this estimate, it is up to resource managers to 

decide whether doubling or halving the number would have any 

impact on the selection of one approach over another.

Although total chinook production may weigh heavily in the selection of a 

preferred alternative, a second, and probably just as important criterion, 

in the selection process is each alternative’s reliance on natural versus 

Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-8

hatchery production to achieve its objectives. The percent of the total 

chinook production that natural fish make up for each alternative is 

shown in Figure III.D.5.

The key points the reader should come away with from the data presented 

in Figure III.D.5 include: 

• Alternative 2 actions result in a Columbia River system that 

emphasizes natural over hatchery production. The emphasis on 

natural production poses some risk however as it means that 

assumptions regarding our ability to improve and recover habitat 

become more critical. As habitat actions will require many decades to 

both implement and derive fish survival benefits, the pay-off of as to 

when the region could see the run sizes depicted for the alternative 

may be longer than the other alternatives which rely more heavily on 

hatcheries. 

• The approach taken in Alternative 2 (e.g. recover mainstem habitat, 

increase habitat connectivity, restore ecosystem function) is more 

consistent with the Council’s Scientific Principles (Appendix I). If our 

assumption is that by following these principles the region is much 

more likely to improve chinook performance, then there is less risk in 

selecting an approach like Alternative 2 in comparison to the others. 

• Some of the actions included in Alternative 2 may not be internally 

consistent. The alternative emphasizes natural production yet still 

allows for the continuation of a large hatchery production program. 

Because there is still considerable debate (uncertainty) as to the impact 

hatchery fish have on wild stocks, either eliminating or severely 

curtailing the hatchery program could reduce this risk.

• The implementation of Alternatives 5 and 6 result in a Columbia River 

system heavily dependent on hatchery production to achieve their 

respective chinook performance objectives. This is especially true if 

the Technology Optimistic worldview best represents the correct State 

of Nature. A decision to place a large emphasis on hatchery 

production poses significant risk to natural (wild) fish through the 

mechanisms of competition, disease, genetic introgression and harvest. 

A major assumption, and therefore risk, inherent in both Alternative 5 

and 6 is that the region can maintain a large-scale hatchery program 

and increase natural chinook abundance through aggressive habitat 

measures directed at the tributaries.

Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-9

The level of natural production resulting from each alternative is also 

important for it has a direct effect on the regions ability to meet ESA 

requirements. These effects are best seen by looking at the impacts each 

alternative has on the listed ESU’s (Figure III.D.6). It should be noted that 

the data shown in Figure III.D.6 are for the Moderate worldview only. 

These results are sufficient to make the key points presented below.

• Alternative 2 substantially increases chinook abundance, productivity 

and life-history diversity in all ESU’s. Thus, there is less risk 

associated with this alternative in regards to recovering listed chinook 

stocks. 

• It is evident from the data in Figure III.D.6 that each of the alternatives 

provides the least amount of benefit to upper-Columbia River ESU’s 

(12 and 13). This is especially true for the productivity parameter, 

which for ESU 12 is actually reduced under Alternatives 5 and 6. 

These data point to the fact that actions in all of the alternatives have 

been focused primarily on improving chinook performance in the 

Snake River (ESU’s 14 and 15). To reduce the extinction risk for stocks 

originating in the Upper-Columbia River, consideration should be 

given to implementing more actions in these ESU’s.

• The difference in chinook performance in Alternatives 5 and 6 indicate 

that performance in some ESU’s (e.g 12 and 13) could be improved by 

simply shifting habitat actions from public to private land or viceversa. The poor response for ESU 13 under Alternative 6 is in a large 

part the result of implementing less effective (lower intensity) habitat 

actions on private lands in comparison to Alternative 5. To reduce the 

risk that Alternative 6 may actually reduce productivity in some ESU’s, 

more thought needs to be given to where habitat actions are 

implemented (public or private) and at what scale (intensity).

• The large improvement in chinook abundance for ESU 14 under 

Alternative 2 comes primarily from new spawning habitat created in 

the Snake River and John Day pool. In contrast, the majority of the 

chinook production for ESU 14 under Alternatives 5 and 6 results from 

increased production in the John Day, Deschutes and Umatilla Rivers. 

Alternative 2 basically assumes that dam removal will create two 

populations with greater abundance than the Hanford Reach fall 

chinook population. It will be difficult, if not impossible to test the 

validity of this assumption without actually removing a project. 

Removing a smaller dam on a tributary could possibly test this 

assumption. 

Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-10

To increase the performance of natural fish, each of the alternatives 

includes actions that improve freshwater habitat conditions. The amount 

of habitat improvement expected from each alternative is shown in Figure 

III.D.7. 

Key points for Figure III.D.7 include:

• All of the alternatives require a substantial increase in freshwater 

productivity in order to increase chinook performance throughout the 

Columbia River Basin. Alternative 5 requires the most improvement in 

freshwater habitat, while Alternative 6 requires the least. At a 

minimum the alternatives assume that freshwater habitat productivity 

can be improved by 35 percent. This is a relatively large improvement 

that may not be achievable either as a result of social constraints or due 

to the ineffectiveness of habitat actions.

• The data in Figure III.D.7 should not be interpreted as requiring a 35 

percent-66 percent improvement in freshwater habitat in all reaches of 

the Columbia River Basin. Instead, the correct interpretation is that the 

alternatives require that we eliminate 35 percent-66 percent of the 

identified habitat problems. These problems may be as simple as 

removing a small blockage or as complex as restoring late summer 

stream flows in a tributary dewatered as a result of agricultural 

practices. Regardless, under either interpretation there is still 

considerable risk that this range of improvement in freshwater habitat 

cannot be achieved. However, the exact scale of the effort, and thus 

probable success, will not be known until after a Diagnosis has been 

completed for all of the subbasins. It is envisioned that the Diagnosis 

would be performed as part of the Assessment and Subbasin Planning 

phases of the Council’s Framework program.

• Each of the alternatives assume a different level of habitat restoration 

effort (intensity) dependent on whether this habitat is located on 

private or public lands. Alternative 2 places equal effort in improving 

habitat on private (2) and public lands (2). Alternative 5 emphasizes 

habitat actions on public land (3) over private (2), while Alternative 6 

requires the same amount of effort as Alternative 5 does for public 

lands (3) but significantly less on public lands (1). It is assumed that 

there is more risk associated with an alternative that requires 

substantial improvement in habitat on private lands in comparison to 

an alternative that relies on actions on public lands. 

• The Technology Optimistic worldview assumes that less habitat 

improvement is needed because the quality of the habitat is better than 

assumed under the other worldviews. The risk in making such an 

Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-11

assumption is that regional managers may underestimate the amount 

of effort (and costs) required to achieve habitat objectives. 

In regards to hatcheries, the data in Figure III.D.8 show the overall 

expected adult return rate for hatchery fish by alternative and worldview. 

The main points from Figure III.D.8 include:

• The adult return rates in this figure should be considered a long-term 

average. There will be years when the adult return rate is higher and 

years when it is lower. Thus, resource managers should not expect to 

see these adult return rates in every year for every stock.

• All alternatives assume that hatchery fish survival can be improved 

through the use of innovative culture practices (NATURES, etc.) and 

that this improvement would result in a ~50 percent increase in 

hatchery fish survival. Studies underway in the Yakima and other 

basins should help determine the validity of this assumption in the 

next three years. For now then, there is considerable risk that these 

survival benefits cannot be achieved.

• The adult-return rates shown for yearlings under each of the 

worldviews appear to be very high in relation to the adult return rates 

observed for chinook juveniles originating from hatcheries located 

higher in the Columbia River system (Berggren and Basham 2000). 

There is therefore considerable risk that the adult return rates 

presented for each worldview may not be achieved on a long-term 

basis for upper basin stocks. It should be noted that we anticipate that 

these values will decrease significantly during the Assessment Phase of 

the Framework process as more information on the Pathogen attribute 

is developed.

• The smolt-to-adult return rates for Alternative 2 are considerably 

higher than those estimated for the other alternatives under all 

worldviews. This results primarily from improvements to mainstem 

Columbia and Snake River habitat that reduces mortality and 

decreases the amount of time required for juveniles to migrate from 

natal streams to the estuary. While the direct survival benefits from 

actions such as dam removal are relatively certain, increased survival 

from a decrease in travel-time is not. A major assumption (risk) in 

Alternative 2 is that there exists a strong flow survival relationship for 

juvenile migrants. 

• Although smolt-to-adult return rates appear high for the Technology 

Optimistic viewpoint they are consistent with this worldview 

assumption that the low hatchery fish survival rates observed over the 

Section III.D — Addressing Uncertainty

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page III.D-12

last 10 years reflect poor nearshore ocean survival conditions and that 

these conditions though cyclical, would improve over time. To realize 

the best-case scenario for Alternatives 6 requires this assumption to be 

true. 

• The increase in subyearling hatchery fish survival under Alternative 6 

in comparison to Alternative 5 for the Moderate and Technology 

Optimistic worldviews reflect the effect juvenile transportation 

assumptions have on model results. Alternative 6 maximizes 

transportation, while in Alternative 5 it is used only when river 

conditions deteriorate (high temperature, low flow). A major 

assumption inherent in Alternative 6 is that for subyearling chinook, 

transportation would provide significant survival benefits in 

comparison to in-river migration. 

• For yearling hatchery chinook, Alternative 5 produces higher smolt-toadult return rates than Alternative 6. This is due primarily to the 

transportation assumptions included in Alternative 6. Transportation 

survival for yearlings is less than ~50 percent for both the Technology 

Pessimistic and Moderate worldviews. In-river survival under 

Alternative 5 for juveniles migrating from Lower Granite Dam to 

below Bonneville Dam can be as high ~55 percent, dependent on time 

of year. Thus, in-river migration provides a significant survival 

advantage for upper river hatchery stocks in Alternative 5. If transport 

survival is high (Technology Optimistic) then the difference in the 

smolt-to-adult return rates for these alternatives narrows, but for 

hatchery stocks as a whole, Alternative 5 still has a higher return rate 

than Alternative 6. The point being that this uncertainty can be 

reduced significantly for yearling hatchery fish by simply placing 

production facilities lower in the basin where they would be less 

affected by the transportation and in-river survival assumptions. 

• Placing hatchery facilities lower in the basin would also allow the 

region to more effectively separate hatchery fish from natural fish, 

thereby reducing the uncertainty associated with hatchery fish impacts 

on natural (wild) stocks originating from ESUs 13-15. Such an 

approach would require defining the purpose of each hatchery (i.e. 

mitigation, harvest, supplementation) and then defining the areas 

(provinces) where each type of facility would be allowed. 
Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-1

RESULTS - FISH

This section of the Results addresses fish; it is organized as follows::

Framework

The Effect of Actions on Environmental Attributes

Biological Performance

EDT Diagnosis

EDT Model Results Validation

Future Phases of The Framework Processes—Assessment and 

Subbasin Planning

Historic Potential 

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

Province Scale Analysis

Current Potential

Columbia River Basin Scale Analysis

Province Scale Analysis

ESU Scale Analysis

Alternative 2

Alternative Overview

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

Province Scale Analysis

ESU Scale Analysis

Alternative 5

Alternative Overview

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

Province Scale Analysis

ESU Scale Analysis

Alternative 6

Alternative Overview


Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-3

attributes described below is heavily influenced by the actions inherent in 

each alternative.

The change in each of the 45 environmental attributes resulting from 

implementation of the alternatives is shown in Figure IV.A.2. The values 

in Figure IV.A.2 represent the amount of change expected from the 

Current Potential. The values apply only to the freshwater rearing phase 

of the chinook life cycle and, thus, emphasize spawning egg incubation 

and juvenile rearing conditions in the tributaries. We present model 

results incorporating the marine component of the species life cycle later 

in the report.

In Figure IV.A.2, data are presented in a consumer report type format 

where indicates less than 20 percent improvement, is 20 percent to < 40 

percent improvement, and is 40 percent or higher improvement. A close 

examination of the data presented in Figure IV.A.2 shows that there was 

little change (<20 percent) in the majority of the environmental attributes 

modeled. 

The lack of significant change could be the result of any of the following 

conditions:

• The alternative did not include strategies designed to affect the 

attribute.

• The strategy was ineffective or had little effect on the attribute.

• A problem did not exist with this attribute (i.e., no impact on fish 

survival).

• The quality of the data was too coarse to detect a change (especially 

true for the habitat type data).

In the EDT methodology, the exact cause for a lack of change observed in 

some of the environmental attributes would be determined during the 

diagnosis phase of the analysis. However, we did not complete a 

diagnosis for this analysis, as it was not needed for meeting the study 

objectives and was not applicable for the particular analytical process 

employed. We discuss this issue in more detail at the end of this section.

Of the 45 environmental attributes modeled, seven generally showed a 

change of greater than 40 percent for most alternatives. These seven 

attributes are:

1. bed scour

2. fine sediment

Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-4

3. riparian function

4. temperature monthly maximum

5. embeddedness

6. turbidity

7. woody debris

The exact percent change in the attributes from the Current Potential is 

shown by alternative and province in Table IV.A.1. It should be noted that 

local biologists reviewed the first four attributes listed above as part of the 

coarse screening process. Thus, the quality of the data is substantially 

improved for these four environmental attributes and may explain why 

these attributes had the greatest effect on model results.

The data presented in Table IV.A.1 and Figure IV.A.2 demonstrate that the 

actions did indeed have a large effect on many of the environmental 

attributes given the assumptions (rules) inherent in the analysis. Later in 

this report we will show how these changes can be used in setting 

biological objectives for the basin and individual provinces.

In summary, the rationale linking actions to environmental attributes is 

established and documented in this step of the analysis. What is yet to be 

demonstrated is whether the change in the environmental attributes 

resulted in increased biological performance.

This question is answered in the paragraphs below.

Biological Performance

The goal of changing the landscape is to increase the productivity of the 

species dependent upon that landscape. In the Framework, it is assumed 

that as the landscape changes, productivity also changes. In other words, 

an improvement in fish habitat should result in an increase in fish survival 

and eventually abundance. In the previous section we showed how the 

landscape, as represented by the environmental attributes, changed under 

each alternative. We now show how this change affected biological 

performance.

The data in Figure IV.A.3 summarize the change in freshwater habitat 

productivity assumed to occur in the Columbia River Basin with the 

implementation of the three analysis alternatives1. As noted previously, 

freshwater productivity consists primarily of the egg incubation and 

 

1 The data for the Current and three alternatives are based on the Moderate set of 

analysis assumptions.
Province

 Alternative A2 A5 A6 A2 A5 A6 A2 A5 A6 A2 A5 A6 A2 A5 A6

 Bed Scour 42 54 36 48 69 60 59 75 53 44 55 34 43 71 65

 Riparian 

Function 48 58 38 47 64 57 47 60 45 48 58 39 47 66 59

 Wood Debris 55 65 47 57 74 70 58 72 62 56 66 46 54 76 71

 Embeddedness 44 50 22 46 64 54 45 60 44 46 56 33 46 65 42

 Fine Sediment 57 68 46 65 83 70 59 75 59 57 68 46 54 76 67

 Turbidity 49 52 27 50 64 52 50 61 44 48 55 32 45 59 40

 Temperature - 

daily Maximum 

(by month) 38 46 28 34 47 38 33 41 25 39 47 26 34 48 40

MOUNTAIN SNAKE

Table IV.A.1 Percent improvement in the key environmental attributes by province and alternative. 

BLUE MOUNTAIN COLUMBIA CASCADE COLUMBIA GORGE COLUMBIA PLATEAU


Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-5

juvenile rearing life stages. Therefore, the productivity term in Figure 

IV.A.3 represents the average number of juveniles (per 1,000 eggs) that 

would survive to the smolt stage with the removal of all density dependent 

survival factors. 

With the completion of this step of the analysis we have filled in the 

linkages connecting actions, environmental attributes and biological 

performance (Figure IV.A.4). Whether the biological performance is 

sufficient to meet the vision described for each alternative can only be 

determined by looking at the overall increase in chinook performance 

resulting from the implementation of each. 

In the EDT method fish performance is described in terms of productivity, 

abundance, and life history diversity. Obtaining estimates for these three 

parameters requires that the complete life cycle of the species be modeled. 

The results of the chinook life cycle analyses are presented in Sections C 

through G. 

Before we describe how chinook performance has changed in the basin 

over time, and could change in the future with the implementation of each 

alternative, we finish this section with a discussion regarding the 

diagnosis phase of EDT.

EDT Diagnosis

The steps in a standard EDT analysis are depicted in Figure IV.A.5. In this 

typical approach, the diagnosis step is completed prior to the 

identification of treatments (actions)—the logic in EDT is that you cannot 

identify and prioritize effective treatments until after you determine 

(diagnosed) what the problems are!

In the Multi-Species Framework analysis, treatments (actions) were 

constructed without the benefit of a completed diagnosis. We assumed 

that the stakeholder groups submitting the alternatives had sufficient 

knowledge of the basin to develop a suite of actions, or at least an 

approach, that would be relatively effective at addressing basin ills—

thereby achieving their identified basin goals. This assumption is likely 

correct for actions dealing with the hydroelectric system and hatcheries, 

but probably less so for habitat. To be effective, habitat actions must be

precisely located on the landscape. The scale (how much) of the habitat 

action is also very important in determining overall biological and cost 

effectiveness. 

Modeled habitat treatments were constructed at the 6-HUC scale, with the 

only location criteria being whether the land was in public or private 

hands. Habitat treatments were, therefore, based more on policy concerns 

than on biological effectiveness. This may explain why some 


Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-6

environmental attributes showed little difference between the Current 

Potential and the three analysis alternatives. Habitat actions could have 

been selected to address problems identified if a detailed diagnosis similar 

to the one shown below for the Deschutes River, Oregon (Figure IV.A.6) 

had been done first.

The data in Figure IV.A.6 show the relative change in attribute effects on 

salmonid (spring chinook) survival in stream reaches of the Deschutes 

River (Mobrand 1999). The data is presented in a consumer report type 

format for easy interpretation. The larger and darker the circle, the bigger 

the impact the attribute has on salmon survival. For example, the attribute 

having the largest effect on chinook survival in the Lower Deschutes River 

mainstem is pathogens.

For the Deschutes analysis, once the major problems were identified, the 

next step in the diagnosis was to determine precisely where in the Lower 

Deschutes River mainstem the problems occur. 

Locating the problems requires examining the data at a finer scale. Figure 

IV.A.7 shows the resulting attribute data by river mile for both the lower 

river and key tributaries. These data indicate that the attributes of habitat 

diversity, oxygen, pathogens, predation, sediment load, and temperature 

had the largest effect on salmon productivity.

We can see the size of the effect the key environmental attributes are 

having on salmon survival in Figure IV.A.8. The data show that overall 

productivity in this reach has decreased from 60 percent to 39.4 percent 

dependent on the life stage examined.

Once we have identified the problems and their location, the next step in 

the diagnosis is to determine the increase in survival that would occur if 

we could treat the problems successfully. This information is also 

presented in Figure IV.A.8 and summarized here for convenience: 

• Potential percent change in productivity = 2.1 percent

• Potential percent change in NEQ = 9.4 percent

• Potential percent change in diversity = 10.7 percent

In short, the successful treatment of the problems identified would result 

in about a 10 percent increase in salmon abundance in the basin. 

The diagnosis is typically completed for all stream reaches analyzed in the 

basin of interest. The results of the diagnosis allow us to identify the 

problem, its location and effect on survival (by life stage), and the 

resulting increase in survival from the elimination of the problem. In 

addition, the diagnosis also provides us with the ability to prioritize 

reaches for treatment. The information needed to prioritize reaches is 

shown in Figure IV.A.8 under the following headings: Productivity Rank, 



Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-7

Average Abundance Rank, and Life History Diversity Rank. In this 

example, the lower river received an abundance rating of 5, a diversity 

rating of 11, and a productivity rating of 13. In other words, there are only 

four reaches in the basin where effective treatments result in larger 

increases in abundancy; 10 that see larger increases in diversity; and 12 for 

productivity. Any proposed fish enhancement plan for the basin should 

emphasize and prioritize treatments in the highest ranked reaches. Such 

an approach would result in a program that is more effective from both a 

biological and cost perspective.

The major point the reader should come away with from this discussion is 

that the diagnosis is the key component required for developing effective 

fish recovery and enhancement strategies in any basin. It is in the 

diagnosis phase that the environmental problems are identified, ranked 

according to their impact on salmon survival, and prioritized for 

treatment. The diagnosis is the tool used for focusing our actions on 

improving the key environmental attributes driving biological 

performance in the basin. The change in these key environmental 

attributes then become the biological objectives to be monitored over time 

for quantifying the effectiveness of our actions.

Although a diagnosis was not performed as part of this analysis, it is 

envisioned that it will be completed in the last stage of the Framework 

process: subbasin planning. In the absence of a detailed diagnosis, the 

discussion presented in the model results section will focus primarily on 

outcomes at the basin and province scales and not at the subbasin level. 

EDT Model Results Validation

As noted previously, we assumed that the data incorporated into this 

analysis were sufficient for estimating fish performance at the basin and 

province levels. To confirm this assumption, we compared EDT model 

results of chinook production for the Current Potential (Moderate 

worldview) with chinook counts at Bonneville, Priest Rapids, and Ice 

Harbor Dams for the years 1988-1997 (ODFW and WDFW 1998). The 

results of this comparison analysis are shown in Figures IV.A.9, IV.A.10, 

and IV.A.11.

The comparison analysis shows that EDT chinook estimates for the 

Current Potential fell within the 10-year range at all three projects. EDT 

estimates of the number of chinook arriving at Ice Harbor Dam were at 

the upper end of the dam count data. These results were deemed 

reasonable given the quality of the data available for the coarse screening 

analysis, the assumptions inherent in the analysis, and the fact that data 



Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-8

quality will be improved as the Framework process proceeds to the next 

two stages of the analysis: Assessment and Subbasin Planning.

Once we determined that the results obtained for the Current Potential 

were reasonable, we used these as the basis for developing the alternatives 

and calibrating the worldview model runs (Methods). It should be 

emphasized that the EDT model results presented from this point forward 

will not include ocean or mainstem harvest effects on adult returns unless 

otherwise noted. This step was required in order to make the results for all 

conditions (Historic Potential, Current Potential, and Alternatives 2, 5, and 

6) comparable. This is especially true when comparing alternatives to the 

Historic Potential, which represents historical conditions prior to 

European influence (i.e., no or limited ocean harvest). Again, all model 

results represent an estimate of chinook production with the elimination 

of all human harvest effects.

Future Phases of The Framework Process—Assessment and 

Subbasin Planning

The validation discussion above shows that the accuracy of EDT estimates 

of chinook production varies dependent on the dam’s location in the 

basin, which corresponds to different provinces (Figure IV.A.9, Figure 

IV.A.10, Figure IV.A.11).

This outcome was expected and planned for in the Framework process. 

The developers of the Framework envisioned that the analysis would be 

undertaken in a series of steps wherein each step the quality of the data 

would be improved. The steps identified were Step 1–Derived Data, Step 

2–Course Screening, Step 3–Assessment, and Step 4-Subbasin Planning 

(Figure IV.A.12). The results presented in this report are for Step-2 Course 

Screening and should be treated as if the analysis were 50 percent 

complete. 

In the Assessment phase of the process, we envision that the data used in 

this analysis will be refined at a finer geographic scale within the 

subbasins. The improved data quality will provide regional managers 

with an understanding of the core problems within the subbasins and 

watersheds. The Assessment phase will therefore provide decision-makers 

with the ability to prioritize watersheds for more detailed assessments at 

the watershed scale. These more detailed assessments will be undertaken 

during the Subbasin Planning phase of the analysis. 

We anticipate that data quality will improve substantially during 

Subbasin Planning, as biologists with local knowledge and expertise fill in 

missing Level 2 attributes, confirm attribute ratings, and adjust ratings 

based on site-specific data at the stream reach level. Once the data have 

Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-9

been updated, biologists would then perform the diagnosis to determine 

basin ills and develop the treatments needed to effectively cure these ills.

Historic Potential

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

To determine the level of chinook production possible in the basin, we 

need an estimate of the Historic Potential—the assumption being that the 

basin, as a whole, cannot sustain natural production levels higher than 

what occurred historically. Because there is a great deal of uncertainty 

inherent in any exercise attempting to estimate fish abundance over 150 

years ago, we used the assumptions present in the three worldviews to 

develop a range of possible historic chinook production levels (Figures 

IV.A.13 and IV.A.14).

The data in Figure IV.A.13 show that the Historical Potential production 

of the basin could range from a low of 2.0 million under the Technology 

Optimistic worldview to 4.6 million for the Technology Pessimistic 

worldview. In general, under all worldviews total chinook production 

consisted of approximately 50 percent falls, 33 percent summer/falls, and 

17 percent springs. 

For the historical analysis, we modeled only those stream reaches 

downstream of Chief Joseph Dam (Columbia River) and Hells Canyon 

Dam (Snake River) approximately 5,540 total stream miles. 

Thus, the abundance estimates do not include stream reaches above these 

fish blockages. 

The difference between the worldview abundance estimates lies in the 

assumptions inherent in each. In the Technology Pessimistic view of the 

world, both freshwater and ocean habitats are assumed to be much more 

productive than they are in the Technology Optimistic worldview. This 

difference is important because it defines the overall production potential 

of the basin, relationship between current and historic run size, and 

expected improvement in chinook production possible from the 

implementation of the three analysis alternatives. The Historic Potential 

defines what is possible to achieve through future actions. The bigger the 

difference between Historic and Current Potentials, the greater the 

opportunity for improvement.

Historic Potential chinook productivity and life history diversity under 

the three worldview assumptions are shown in Table IV.A.2. As you can 

see from the data presented in this table, productivity is highest under the 

Technology Pessimistic worldview, and lowest for the Technology 


Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-10

Optimistic. Life history diversity is the same for all worldviews (i.e., 100 

percent), meaning that the full range of life history patterns modeled was 

possible under the Historic Potential. 

Productivity is important because it is a measure of the ability of a species 

to rebound when population size is reduced. The very high productivity 

values shown for the Technology Pessimistic worldview indicate that 

chinook populations would respond rapidly as we improve habitat 

conditions throughout the basin. In contrast, the lower productivity 

values associated with the Technology Optimistic worldview indicate that 

fish response to similar actions would be more gradual. The time 

component is important for determining how many years may be needed 

to observe or directly measure the effects our actions have on chinook 

performance. Future research and monitoring programs focused on 

determining the effectiveness of proposed actions would therefore need to 

consider the element of time in their design.

Life history diversity is important because it represents the multitude of 

pathways through space and time available to, and used by, a species in 

completing its life cycle. Populations that can sustain a wide variety of life 

history patterns are likely to be more resilient to environmental change. 

Diverse life history patterns dampen the risk of extinction or reduced 

production in fluctuating environments (den Boer 1968).

The information presented in this section described a possible range of 

historic chinook performance for the Columbia River Basin under 

different worldviews. In the next section we describe how historic chinook 

production varied in the five provinces analyzed.

Province Scale Analysis

We developed estimates of chinook Historic Potential performance for 

five Columbia River Basin provinces (Figure IV.A.15). The Columbia 

Gorge, Columbia Plateau, Columbia Cascade, Blue Mountains and 

Mountain Snake (Figure IV.A.15) Modeling results are summarized by 

province, race, and worldview in Table IV.A.3. Because the discussion 

points presented above for the basin level analysis also apply at the 

province level, they are not repeated here. Instead, we use the data in 

Table IV.A.3 for the Moderate worldview to quickly summarize the key 

results.







Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-13

that, Figure IV.A.16. Total number of hatchery chinook salmon returning 

to the river, with and without ocean and mainstem harvest.

Dependent on worldview, total chinook production potential ranges from 

approximately 206,000 to 340,000. Natural chinook represent between 

127,000 (~62 percent) and 150,000 (~44 percent) of total production for the 

Technology Pessimistic and Optimistic worldviews, respectively. For 

these same worldviews hatchery fish constitute 38 percent (79,000) and 56 

percent (190,000) of all chinook production, respectively. These results are 

consistent with the assumptions inherent in each worldview, i.e., hatchery 

fish do better under the Technology Optimistic set of assumptions than 

under the Technology Pessimistic set.

In Figure IV.A.18 we show Current Potential chinook production of the 

basin relative to the Historic Potential. This comparison shows that 

regardless of the worldview examined, current chinook abundance is less 

than ~17 percent of Historic Potential.

Note that the Historic Potential is different for the three worldviews. The 

Technology Pessimist estimates Current Potential at four percent of a 

larger number, and the Technology Optimist sees it as 17 percent of a 

smaller number.

These results were expected, as the analysis was undertaken in order to 

develop an effective approach for recovering chinook populations whose 

numbers are so low that they have been listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We present and discuss model results by ESU later in 

this report.

Chinook productivity has also decreased substantially from the Historic 

Potential (Table IV.A.4). For example, spring chinook productivity under 

the Moderate worldview historically ranged from approximately 22 to 28, 

now it ranges from three to nine dependent on province (Moderate 

assumptions). The reduction in productivity means that chinook 

populations would recover more slowly when population abundance is 

reduced. Actions that increase productivity would therefore decrease the 

amount of time required for chinook populations to meet recovery 

objectives.

The life history diversity index value for summer/fall, fall, and spring 

chinook have dropped from an unweighted average of about 100 percent, 

to 33 percent, 37 percent and 61 percent, respectively (Table IV.A.4-

Moderate). The large drop in life history diversity makes these 

populations less resilient to environmental change, thereby increasing 

their risk of extinction. Actions designed to increase life history diversity 

would help to reduce this extinction risk.

Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-14

In Table IV.A.4 the reader will also see data presented on the number of 

fish populations present in the basin today. These data indicate that a 

number of populations are no longer present under the Current Potential. 

Under the Moderate worldview set of assumptions the number of 

populations have been reduced from 65 under the Historic Potential to 48 

under the Current Potential. These data do not necessarily indicate the 

loss of a unique stock, but instead reflect a decrease in fish distribution 

and habitat. For example, due to the construction of the Pelton Round 

Butte Hydroelectric Complex (Deschutes River, OR), spring chinook no 

longer have access to the Crooked River and Metolius River. Modeling 

results therefore show a loss of two populations in the Deschutes River 

Basin (Columbia Plateau province).

The results presented in this section show that current chinook 

abundance, productivity, population numbers, and life history diversity in 

the Columbia River Basin have been severely reduced in comparison to 

the Historic Potential. In the section below we describe how chinook 

performance has changed over time in the five provinces.

Province Scale Analysis

Modeling results for each of the five provinces are also summarized in 

Table IV.A.4. Because the discussion points presented above for the basin 

level analysis also apply at the province level, they are not repeated here. 

Instead, we simply use the Moderate assumption data in Table IV.A.4 to 

quickly summarize the key biological performance results obtained at the 

province scale. 

The change from historical for each of the environmental attributes 

modeled is presented in Table IV.A.5. The data in Table IV.A.5 represent 

the number of instances (data points) where the current value for the 

attribute exceeds the historical value. For example, there were 90 instances 

where the bed scour attribute was rated worse than historic conditions in 

the Blue Mountain province (Table IV.A.5).

The environmental attributes affect tributary freshwater habitat 

productivity2. It should be noted that the habitat environmental attributes 

were not included in this table, as a change in habitat diversity may have 

either positive or negative effects on chinook performance. Additionally, 

you will note that there is no data for some of the attributes listed in Table 

 

2 Because of the presence of dams in the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers, 

mainstem habitat was treated (rated) differently than tributary habitat. Juvenile 

and adult survival through the mainstem was based on NMFS and PATH 

survival data, flow and juvenile travel time relationships, and predation 

information.
BLUE_ 

MOUNTAIN

COLUMBIA_ 

CASCADE

COLUMBIA_ 

GORGE

COLUMBIA_ 

PLATEAU

MOUNTAIN_ 

SNAKE

Current Current Current Current Current

Alkalinity 

Bed scour 90 87 33 955 350

Benthos diversity and production 84 36 36 1164 312

CONFINE

ConfineHydro 552

Dissolved oxygen 

Embeddedness 204 312 204 1620 708

Flow - interannual variability in high flows 4 16 2

Flow - intra-annual flow pattern-monthly variation 

Flow - interannual variability in low flows 36 32 23 204 193

Fine sediment 612 564 228 2592 2580

Fish community richness 

Fish pathogens 

Fish species introductions 

Gradient 

Harvest and harassment 

Hatchery fish outplants 

SumOfHydroRegimeReg

Icing 

Metals - in sediments/soils 

Metals - in water column 

Miscellaneous toxic pollutants - water column 84

Nutrient enrichment 115 43 12 662 522

Obstructions to fish migration 

Predation risk 

Riparian function 624 576 252 2868 2028

Salmon Carcasses 

Temperature - daily maximum (by month) 157 154 44 722 555

Temperature - daily minimum (by month) 18

Temperature - spatial variation 

Turbidity 241 266 126 1268 522

Wood debris 624 600 300 2640 2208

Table IV.A.5 Number of instances where Current Potential environmental attributes are degraded from the Historic Potential.

Note 1: Blank cells imply values for the Level 2 attribute did not exist or that the differences between the Current Potential and the Historic 

Alternative Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential

Tech.Pess. 160.2 50.5 142.3 64 142.2 70.4 157.1 35.1 185.1 102.7

Moderate 165.7 58.4 166.2 75.4 158 83.7 163.9 41.5 187.9 111.6

Tech.Opt. 170.7 71.5 155.8 89.5 157.3 94.2 168 52.7 189.6 123.7

Table IV.A.6 Freshwater productivity under Current Potential and Historic Potential by province. 

Productivity is expressed as number of juveniles produced per 1,000 eggs.

BLUE_ MOUNTAIN COLUMBIA_ 

CASCADE

COLUMBIA_ 

GORGE

COLUMBIA_ 

PLATEAU

MOUNTAIN_ 

SNAKE
ESU Number General Description

ESU-11 Mid-Columbia Spring Chinook

ESU-12 Mid/Upper Columbia Summer and Fall Chinook

ESU-13 Upper Columbia Spring Chinook

ESU-14 Snake Fall Chinook

ESU-15 Snake Summer and Spring Chinook

Table IV.A.7 Identification of Columbia River Ecological 

Significant Units (ESUs) included in this analysis (Source: NMFS 

website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov).
ESU-11 ESU-12 ESU-13 ESU-14 ESU-15

Abundance 6% 9% 7% 1% 7%

Productivity 22% 30% 11% 17% 13%

Diversity 38% 44% 84% 16% 75%

Table IV.A.8 Current Potential as a percent of Historic Potential.



Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-17

all races combined. The percent values presented by race show the 

proportion that each contributed to the entire total. The reader should be 

aware that the Hydro and Hatchery related environmental attributes were 

not included in this chart due to space constraints. However, the change in 

these attributes does have an effect on resulting biological performance for 

each alternative. In a later section of this report we will identify these 

attributes and show how they could be used in establishing biological 

objectives for each alternative.

The increase in freshwater habitat productivity under this alternative is 

shown in Table IV.A.9. The percent change in freshwater productivity 

over current (Moderate) varied from 25 percent for the Mountain Snake to 

~112 percent in the Columbia Plateau. For all provinces combined, 

freshwater productivity increased by an average of ~61 percent. Whether 

or not Alternative 2 habitat actions would actually achieve this level of 

improvement would be dependent on the region’s ability to successfully 

implement the actions and their eventual effectiveness. 

However, the reader should note that the environmental data driving 

these productivity values would be reviewed for accuracy during the 

assessment and subbasin planning phases of the Framework process. The 

incorporation of more accurate data may change estimates of resulting 

productivity significantly.

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

In Table IV.A.10 we present a summary of modeling results for 

Alternative 2. The data in this table include information on abundance, 

productivity, life history diversity, number of natural and hatchery fish, 

and number of populations3. 

Alternative 2 is expected to increase chinook abundance over the Current 

Potential from 164 percent to 381 percent dependent on the true state-ofnature (worldview) (Figure IV.A.21). This alternative provides the greatest 

increase under the Technology Pessimistic worldview and the least 

amount of change under the Technology Optimistic set of assumptions.

The percent change from current for both natural and hatchery production 

for this alternative is shown in Figure IV.A.22. The data in this figure 

indicate that natural production increases from 219 percent to 494 percent, 

hatchery production from 120 percent to 197 percent, dependent on 

worldview.

 

3 Population numbers increase either when actions in the alternative allow fish 

access to previously blocked habitat (extends range) or when an existing 

population’s productivity value exceeds 1.0.
Alt

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Tech Pess 160.2 50.5 95.7 142.3 64 91.6 142.2 70.4 101.3 157.1 35.1 77.3 185.1 102.7 129.9

Mod 165.7 58.4 107.2 166.2 75.4 111.2 158 83.7 116.5 163.9 41.5 88 187.9 111.6 139.2

Tech Opt 170.7 71.5 119.8 155.8 89.5 117 157.3 94.2 126.1 168 52.7 101.9 189.6 123.7 149.5

Table IV.A.9 Freshwater productivity under Current, Historic, and alternative 2 conditions by province. Productivity is expressed as number of juveniles produced 

per 1,000 eggs. 

BLUE_MOUNTAIN COLUMBIA_CASCADE COLUMBIA_GORGE COLUMBIA_PLATEAU MOUNTAIN_SNAKE









Species/Province

Spring Chinook TECH PESS MOD TECH OPT

 BLUE_MOUNTAIN 280% 168% 80%

 COLUMBIA_CASCADE 74% 71% 46%

 COLUMBIA_GORGE 52% 46% 39%

 COLUMBIA PLATEAU 105% 95% 59%

 MOUNTAIN_SNAKE 332% 193% 90%

Summer/Fall

 BLUE_MOUNTAIN 318% 164% 89%

 COLUMBIA_CASCADE 31% 26% 26%

 COLUMBIA PLATEAU 26% 20% 57%

 MOUNTAIN_SNAKE 318% 188% 96%

Fall

 BLUE_MOUNTAIN 359% 189% 100%

 COLUMBIA_GORGE 1% 17% 43%

 COLUMBIA_PLATEAU 10% 2% 1%

Worldview

Table IV.A.11 Percent change in natural chinook productivity over Current Potential for 

Alternative 2, under the three worldviews.

ESU-11 ESU-12 ESU-13 ESU-14 ESU-15

Abundance 23% 9% 13% 35% 31%

Productivity 21% 7% 9% 13% 27%

Diversity 51% 60% 74% 68% 96%

Table IV.A.12 Percent of difference between Historic and Current Potentials recovered 

under Alternative 2.
Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-21

the linkage between Alternative 5 actions, environmental attributes, and 

biological performance.

Alternative Overview

For review purposes we have listed below the major actions included in 

Alternative 5 to improve chinook performance in the basin. These actions 

are as follows:

• Eliminate juvenile transportation program during the spring and early 

summer juvenile migration period. 

• Increase mainstem Columbia River average spring and summer flows 

by as much as 12 percent.

• Increase juvenile in-river survival through the addition of state-of-theart surface collection/bypass systems at mainstem projects and 

increased spill.

• Use hatchery supplementation and improved hatchery facilities and 

rearing practices to increase the quantity and quality of fish returning 

to the basin.

• Improve freshwater habitat on both public and private lands. Habitat 

actions were assigned an intensity value of 2 for private lands, and a 3 

on public lands.

• As is the case with all alternatives, eliminate ocean and mainstem 

harvest.

The effect that the combined actions in Alternative 5 had on the 

environmental attributes and natural chinook biological performance is 

shown graphically in Figure IV.A.26. The values in the environmental 

attributes table in this figure represent the percent improvement over 

Current Potential. The biological performance chart shows the percent 

improvement in natural chinook abundance for all races combined. The 

percent values presented for each show the proportion that each race 

contributed to the entire total. 

The reader should be aware that the Hydrology and Hatchery related 

environmental attributes were not included in this chart due to space 

constraints. However, the change in these attributes does have an effect on 

resulting biological performance for this and other alternatives. In a later 

section of this report we will identify these attributes and show how they 

could be used in establishing biological objectives for each alternative.

The increase in freshwater habitat productivity under this alternative is 

shown in Table IV.A.14. The percent change in freshwater productivity 

over current (Moderate) varied from 31 percent for the Mountain Snake to 


Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-22

~134 percent in the Columbia Plateau. For all provinces combined, 

freshwater productivity increased by an average of ~61 percent4. Whether 

or not alternative 5 habitat actions would actually achieve this level of 

improvement would be dependent on the region’s ability to successfully 

implement the actions and their eventual effectiveness. However, the 

reader should note that the environmental data driving these productivity 

values would be reviewed for accuracy during the assessment and 

subbasin planning phases of the Framework process. The incorporation of 

more accurate data may change estimates of resulting freshwater habitat 

productivity significantly.

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

In Table IV.A.14 we present a summary of modeling results for 

Alternative 5. The data in this table include information on chinook 

abundance, productivity, life history diversity, number of natural and 

hatchery fish, and number of populations5. 

Alternative 5 is expected to increase chinook abundance over Current 

Potential from 114 percent to 216 percent dependent on the worldview 

examined (Figure IV.A.27). This alternative provides the greatest increase 

under the Technology Pessimistic worldview and the least amount of 

change under the Technology Optimistic set of assumptions.

The percent change from current for both natural and hatchery production 

for this alternative is shown in Figure IV.A.28. The data in this figure 

indicate that natural production increases from 90 percent to 245 percent 

and hatchery production from 133 percent to 167 percent.

The proportion of natural and hatchery fish produced for each worldview 

is presented in Figure IV.A.29. Note that the hatchery fish component 

increases as the worldviews change from Technology Pessimistic to 

Technology Optimistic. This increase is a direct result of the higher 

hatchery post-release survival assumptions used in the Moderate and 

Technology Optimistic worldviews. For example, the post-release survival 

values used for hatchery fish under the Technology Pessimistic, Moderate 

and Technology Optimistic worldviews are 15 percent, 30 percent and 60 

percent, respectively6.

 

4 This is an unweighted average for all provinces combined.

5 Population numbers increase either when actions in the alternative allow fish 

access to previously blocked habitat (extends range) or when an existing 

population’s productivity value exceeds 1.0.

6 These post-release survival values are for hatchery fish reared using innovative 

hatchery practices.



Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-23

Chinook productivity under this alternative increases by the amounts 

shown in Figure IV.A.30. These data indicate that average (weighted) 

spring chinook productivity changes from 43 percent to 77 percent, 

summer chinook from 32 percent to 76 percent, and fall chinook by minus 

one percent to four percent depending on the worldview.

The life history values for each race and worldview are also presented in 

Table IV.A.14. Overall, spring, summer and fall chinook diversity values 

increased for all provinces under all worldviews. Populations that can 

sustain a wide variety of life history patterns are likely to be more resilient 

to environmental change, which in turn should reduce their risk of 

extinction.

Under Alternative 5 the number of viable populations, in comparison to 

the current, increases from 48 to 58 (Table IV.A.14-Moderate). The 

majority of the population gains come from the Columbia Plateau 

province. 

Now that we have seen how Alternative 5 affected chinook production at 

the basin level we next examine how each of the provinces fared.

Province Scale Analysis

Alternative 5 Modeling results for each of the five provinces are 

summarized in Table IV.A.14 by race and worldview. Because the major 

points presented for the basin level analysis also apply at the province 

level, they are not repeated here. Instead we use a series of tables and 

figures to highlight the key biological performance results obtained at the 

province scale. Unless otherwise noted, the discussion will revolve around 

model results for the Moderate worldview. 

The results presented in this section indicate that Alternative 5 increased 

chinook abundance, productivity, and life history diversity substantially 

for most provinces and races modeled. We next examine how chinook 

performance changes under this alternative at the ESU level (Figure 

IV.A.31, Table IV.A.15).

ESU Scale Analysis

Modeling results for each of the five ESUs are summarized in Table 

IV.A.16. Data in this table represents chinook response to the actions of 

Alternative 5 as the percent of the loss recovered. By loss we mean the 

difference between Historic Potential and Current Potential described in 

the previous section. Because the major points presented for the basin 

level analysis also apply at the ESU level, they are not repeated here. 



Species/Province

 Spring Chinook TECH PESS MOD TECH OPT

 BLUE MOUNTAIN 140% 77% 20%

 COLUMBIA_CASCADE 65% 57% 30%

 COLUMBIA_GORGE 61% 53% 43%

 COLUMBIA_PLATEAU 107% 90% 50%

 MOUNTAIN_SNAKE 172% 94% 28%

 Summer/Fall

 BLUE MOUNTAIN 142% 60% 18%

 COLUMBIA_CASCADE 22% 16% 18%

 COLUMBIA_PLATEAU 8% 7% 62%

 MOUNTAIN_SNAKE 136% 73% 21%

 Fall 

 BLUE_MOUNTAIN 90% 32% 3%

 COLUMBIA_GORGE 17% 30% 53%

 COLUMBIA_PLATEAU -2% -7% -7%

Worldview

Table IV.A.15 Percent change in natural chinook productivity over Current Potential 

for Alternative 2, under the three worldviews.
ESU-11 ESU-12 ESU-13 ESU-14 ESU-15

Abundance 24% 5% 12% 11% 15%

Productivity 20% -1% 7% 9% 11%

Diversity 52% 63% 97% 49% 95%

Table IV.A.16 Percent of difference between Historic and Current Potentials recovered under 

Alternative 5.

Section IV.A — Results, Fish

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.A-25

The effect the combined actions in Alternative 6 had on the environmental 

attributes and chinook biological performance is shown graphically in 

Figure IV.A.32. The values in the environmental attributes table in this 

figure represent the percent improvement over the Current Potential. The 

biological performance chart shows the percent improvement in natural 

chinook abundance for all races combined. The percent values presented 

for each show the proportion each race contributed to the entire total. The 

reader should be aware that the Hydro and Hatchery related 

environmental attributes were not included in this chart due to space 

constraints. However, the change in these attributes does have an effect on 

resulting biological performance for this and other alternatives. In a later 

section of this report we will identify these attributes and show how they 

could be used in establishing biological objectives for each alternative.

The increase in freshwater habitat productivity under this alternative is 

shown in Table IV.A.17. The percent change in freshwater productivity 

over current (Moderate) varied from 26 percent for the Mountain Snake to 

~82 percent in the Columbia Plateau. For all provinces combined, 

freshwater productivity increased by an average of ~44 percent7.

Whether or not Alternative 6 habitat actions would actually achieve this 

level of improvement would be dependent on the region’s ability to 

successfully implement the actions and their eventual effectiveness. 

However, the reader should note that the environmental data driving 

these productivity values would be reviewed for accuracy during the 

assessment and subbasin planning phases of the Framework process. The 

incorporation of more Framework process incorporation of more accurate 

data may change estimates of freshwater habitat productivity 

significantly.

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

In Table IV.A.18 we present a summary of modeling results for 

Alternative 6. The data in this table include information on chinook 

abundance, productivity, life history diversity, number of natural and 

hatchery fish, and number of populations8. 

Alternative 6 is expected to increase chinook abundance over current from 

107 percent to 122 percent dependent on the worldview examined (Figure 

IV.A.33). This alternative provides the greatest increase under the 

 

7 This is an unweighted average for all provinces combined.

8 Population numbers increase either when actions in the alternative allow fish 

access to previously blocked habitat (extends range) or when an existing 

population’s productivity value exceeds 1.0.


Alt

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

Historic 

Potential

Current 

Potential A2

T Pess 160.2 50.5 50.5 142.3 64 94.6 142.2 70.4 100.2 157.1 35.1 66.4 185.1 102.7 133.2

Mod 165.7 58.4 58.4 166.2 75.4 113.3 158 83.7 113 163.9 41.5 75.5 187.9 111.6 141

T Opt 170.7 71.5 71.5 155.8 89.5 118.1 157.3 94.2 122.8 168 52.7 87.8 189.6 123.7 150.1

Table IV.A.17 Freshwater habitat quality index values for the Historic Potential, Current Potential, and Alternative 6.

BLUE_MOUNTAIN COLUMBIA_CASCADE COLUMBIA_GORGE COLUMBIA_PLATEAU MOUNTAIN_SNAKE







Species/Province

Spring Chinook TECH PESS MOD TECH OPT

 BLUE_MOUNTAIN 36% 51% 32%

 COLUMBIA_CASCADE -9% 1% 21%

 COLUMBIA_GORGE 53% 45% 37%

 COLUMBIA_PLATEAU 72% 54% 36%

 MOUNTAIN_SNAKE 37% 50% 37%

Summer/Fall

 BLUE_MOUNTAIN -18% -7% -5%

 COLUMBIA_CASCADE -20% -8% 7%

 COLUMBIA_PLATEAU 10% 8% 26%

 MOUNTAIN_SNAKE 10% 32% 23%

Fall

 BLUE_MOUNTAIN -15% 4% 3%

 COLUMBIA_GORGE 3% 11% 26%

 COLUMBIA PLATEAU -16% -7% -2%

Worldview

Table IV.A.19 Percent change in natural chinook productivity over Current 

Potential for Alternative 6, under the three worldviews.
ESU-11 ESU-12 ESU-13 ESU-14 ESU-15

Abundance 15% 1% 4% 3% 8%

Productivity 12% -4% 0% 9% 5%

Diversity 41% 40% 70% 15% 63%

Table IV.A.20 Percent of difference between Historic and Current Potentials recovered 

under Alternative 6.

Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-1

RESULTS - WILDLIFE

This section of the Results addresses wildlife; it is organized as follows:

Wildlife Species

Habitat Performance

Biological Performance

Wildlife Species

In this section, we present analysis results on selected individual wildlife 

species and their habitat performance under the planning alternatives at 

three time periods. 

Habitat Performance

Wildlife habitat type maps are the basis for determining habitat 

performance in the United States portion of the Columbia River Basin. 

Two maps (Figure IV.B.1 and Figure IV.B.2), compiled by the Northwest 

Habitat Institute, illustrate historic conditions (circa 1850) and current 

conditions. Habitat performance was evaluated by comparing the 

amounts of various wildlife habitats for historic, current, and future (i.e., 

alternative strategies) conditions. Each of the 32 wildlife habitat types is 

depicted as a colored polygon with each color representing a terrestrial, 

freshwater or marine habitat type. This representation of wildlife habitat 

types is the first of its kind for the U. S. portion of the basin (discussions 

with Canadian biologists are proceeding to continue the mapping effort 

for the whole basin). This consistent mapping effort will result in a 

hierarchical analysis of the provinces, subbasins, and watersheds. 

The results for habitat performance are summarized for a few of the 

habitats (i.e., shrub steppe, agriculture, and eastside mixed conifer) that 

illustrate great change since the 1850s. All wildlife habitats and their 

value for wildlife are integrated into the Habitat Condition Indices and 

Functional Analyses presented in the following sections. A summary of 

these data (Table IV.B.1) is the basis for illustrating changes between 

historic, current, and alternative strategies for the basin and provinces. 


Positive 

Negative

No

Positive 

Negative

No

Positive 

Negative

No

Positive 

Negative

No

BLUE_MOUNTAINS Shrub-steppe 186457 -284029 -218413 -214101 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Agriculture 386735 651 519 -5227 Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 540809 59862 42344 41981 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 71 150 12 66 58 109 61 63 109 57 68 108

TFD 91 141 1 129 103 1 125 107 1 126 106 1

FR 105 125 3 146 81 6 144 83 6 144 83 6

COLUMBIA_GORGE Shrub-steppe 5933 -5131 -5349 -5340 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Agriculture 36656 -11130 -12280 -12345 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer -435310 13714 15099 -16098 No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 9 30 0 17 18 4 17 18 4 17 18 4

TFD 18 21 0 20 19 0 20 19 0 21 18 0

FR 8 34 0 30 9 0 30 9 0 31 8 0

INTER_MOUNTAIN Shrub-steppe -97226 -27582 -24140 -9563 No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Agriculture 1076818 -448393 -499074 -498907 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 903068 209460 216245 210793 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 112 162 2 93 173 10 93 173 10 91 175 10

TFD 27 249 0 248 28 0 251 25 0 250 26 0

FR 41 235 0 239 37 0 239 37 0 240 36 0

MIDDLE_SNAKE Shrub-steppe 743903 -1573174 -1625847 -1577298 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Agriculture 2493738 -727601 -795871 -812187 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 623343 2074 5473 5500 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 283 368 588 261 351 627 257 355 627 255 356 628

TFD 343 855 41 712 483 44 716 479 44 718 477 44

FR 513 443 283 534 404 301 533 405 301 531 407 301

MOUNTAIN_SNAKE Shrub-steppe 677255 -489660 -512592 -512592 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Agriculture 878513 -388610 -427488 -427488 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 2103950 -12663 -14134 -14134 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eagle HCI 364 628 14 372 339 295 370 341 295 370 341 295

TFD 498 508 0 783 223 0 787 219 0 787 219 0

FR 485 521 0 672 333 1 672 333 1 672 333 1

Table IV.B.1 Change results for a sample of the analysis constructed for wildlife-habitat types, specific species (bald eagle) and functional analysis 

(total functional diversity, TFD, and functional redundancy, FR) are the basis for historgrams assessing the basin and provinces for historic, current 

and alternative conditions.

Change Summaries

Province Environmental Attributes

Hist-Curr Curr-Alt2 Curr-Alt5 Curr-Alt6 Hist-Curr Curr-Alt2 Curr-Alt5 Curr-Alt6
COLUMBIA_CASCADE Shrub-steppe 494254 -481141 -574002 -479328 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Agriculture 539476 -188290 -215364 -205802 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 223716 157674 171269 162585 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 223 66 10 112 171 16 113 170 16 114 169 16

TFD 60 239 0 208 91 0 204 95 0 208 91 0

FR 46 250 3 245 51 3 247 49 3 245 51 3

COLUMBIA_PLATEAU Shrub-steppe -3084958 795232 952563 952563 No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Agriculture 8992071 -4678675 -5134312 -5134312 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 1279241 37790 39212 39212 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 780 447 173 208 847 345 187 869 344 183 873 344

TFD 168 1232 0 1124 275 1 1127 272 1 1129 270 1

FR 763 561 76 593 725 82 594 724 82 587 731 82

LOWER_COLUMBIA Shrub-steppe 0 0 0 0

Agriculture 2078113 -909365 -1017371 -1027531 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 2652 85 117 117 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 115 173 0 84 180 24 80 184 24 81 183 24

TFD 38 250 0 178 110 0 181 107 0 187 101 0

FR 122 166 0 183 105 0 186 102 0 183 105 0

MOUNTAIN_COLUMBIA Shrub-steppe 262735 -218281 -223622 -217625 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Agriculture 826476 -219776 -233226 -227406 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 1408442 205176 216689 215458 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 1133 44 61 671 500 67 673 498 67 669 502 67

TFD 451 787 0 929 309 0 925 313 0 927 311 0

FR 429 809 0 940 298 0 937 301 0 939 299 0

UPPER_SNAKE Shrub-steppe -2871658 721532 876448 876448 No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Agriculture 5941645 -2964045 -3255359 -3255359 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer -403624 191146 200985 200985 No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 837 18 189 187 658 199 186 659 199 186 659 199

TFD 263 776 5 727 313 4 728 312 4 728 312 4

FR 486 483 75 565 401 78 564 402 78 564 402 78

TOTAL_BASIN Shrub-steppe -3683305 -1562235 -1354954 -1147825 No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Agriculture 23250240 -10535235 -11589827 -11615880 Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes

Eastside Mixed Conifer 6246288 864318 893299 877841 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Eagle HCI 3927 2086 1049 2071 3295 1696 2037 3330 1695 2023 3344 1695

TFD 1957 5058 47 5058 1954 50 5064 1948 50 5081 1931 50

FR 2995 3627 440 4147 2444 471 4146 2445 471 4136 2455 471

TFD: Total Functional Diversity FR: Functional Redundancy

Table IV.B.1 Change results for a sample of the analysis constructed for wildlife-habitat types, specific species (bald eagle) and functional 

analysis (total functional diversity, TFD, and functional redundancy, FR) are the basis for historgrams assessing the basin and provinces for 

historic, current and alternative conditions.
Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-2

Historic 

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

The historic wildlife habitat type map (Figure IV.B.1) was created to 

illustrate the norm circa 1850 for the U.S. portion of the Columbia Basin. 

This map provides an idea of what the historic (and future) potential for 

an area might be. The historic map is coarse at 1.6 miles (1 km) resolution 

compared to the finer scale current map. The coarse scale map at the basin 

and the province levels can under-represent some wildlife habitat types. 

For example, the historic map indicates relatively large wetland areas in 

the Willamette and Snake River valleys. Narrow riparian wetlands along 

small streams in headwater situations are not represented at the coarse 

scale. The fact that these narrow wetlands are not shown means that they 

are underrepresented in the historic map and that there is less difference 

shown between historic and current conditions than likely what actually 

occurred. Other wildlife habitats such as shrub steppe are less likely under 

represented on the historic map and changes between historic and current 

are likely more representative of actual changes. 

The historic wildlife habitat types serve as a reference for wildlife 

restoration across the basin. Management Activities or strategies that 

change current conditions toward the historic condition are likely to 

restore wildlife habitat types for native wildlife species and communities. 

The historic and current maps also provide insight to ecosystem processes 

that have resulted in ecosystem change. Insights into ecosystem processes 

and functions are likely to help understand and guide the direction (but 

not the detail) of what a future alternative might be. 

General amounts of the three examples of wildlife habitat types in the 

basin are represented by the grand total column in Figure IV.B.3. The 

shrub-steppe habitat comprised about 28 percent, east-side mixed conifer 

about 14 percent, and agriculture was nearly absent in the basin under 

historic conditions. The detail of the amount of these and the other 

wildlife habitat in the basin will come later in the analyses for the 

subbasin assessments. The historic wildlife habitat types are most 

interesting when compared to the map of current wildlife habitats (see 

below). 

Province Scale Analysis

The province scale analysis of wildlife habitat types was conducted for 

three wildlife habitat types as an example of the type of analysis that 

might be conducted to assess differences in wildlife habitat across the 

basin, and as a basis for assessing change in space and time (Figure 

IV.B.4). Eastside mixed conifer habitat occurs in all provinces with the 


Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-3

exception of the Lower Columbia. This habitat is more common in the 

Columbia Gorge, Inter Mountain, Mountain Columbia, and Mountain 

Snake Provinces. Shrub steppe habitat is also present in nine of the ten 

provinces. It is most common in the Columbia Plateau, Middle Snake, and 

Upper Snake Provinces. The agricultural habitat type is close to zero in all 

provinces. 

Current 

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

Wildlife habitat types mapped for the current conditions (Figure IV.B.2) 

are depicted at a minimum mapping unit of 250 acres (100 ha). The most 

notable changes from the historic map are: (1) conversion of the shrub 

steppe and dwarf shrub steppe to agriculture, (2) conversion of the 

Willamette and Snake River Valley wetlands and grasslands to 

agriculture, and (3) conversion of eastside ponderosa pine forest to mixed 

conifer forest (due to fire suppression, selective logging, and grazing). 

Conversion of wetlands is detectable for large areas such as the 

Willamette Valley and the Vancouver Lake area along the Lower 

Columbia. These large changes give managers a perspective of the 

general magnitude and location of changes that have occurred. The 

minimum mapping unit of the historic map precludes an accurate 

representation of the relatively narrow (i.e., less than 1,000 feet wide) 

historic wetlands that occurred along many of the smaller tributaries that 

were likely important to beaver and salmon in historic times. Accurate 

analyses of wetland and riparian changes will have to await later analyses 

at the subbasin and watershed scales. 

The grand total percents of the three habitats at the basin scale indicate 

shrub steppe is just over 20 percent, and eastside mixed conifer is just 

under 20 percent of the basin (Figure IV.B.3). The most dramatic change 

between historic and current conditions is the increase of 23.5 million 

acres of agriculture (Figure IV.B.5). A relatively small portion of this 

change came from shrub steppe wildlife habitat type. Other wildlife 

habitat types such as grassland, forest and dwarf shrub steppe have also 

been converted to agriculture (Hessburg et al. 2000, Huff et al. 1995). 

Province Scale Analysis

Changes in shrub-steppe and eastside mixed conifer wildlife habitat types 

likely are better (than wetlands) represented at the province scale. The 

percent of these wildlife habitat types for current conditions (Figure 

IV.B.3) in the various provinces indicates where conversions to agriculture 

are the greatest. For example, about 6 percent (0.4 million acres) of the 

Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-4

Mountain Snake province has been converted to agriculture whereas 

almost 30 percent (3.9 million acres) of the Columbia Plateau has been 

converted to agriculture. Eastside mixed conifer forest conversion to 

agriculture is most pronounced in the Mountain Columbia (about 45 

percent). These changes are best illustrated in Figure IV.B.6 where the 

largest increases in agricultural acreage are in the Columbia Plateau and 

the Mountain Snake provinces. Given the large conversions to agriculture 

in these provinces, it is not surprising that this is where there was the 

largest reduction in shrub steppe acres. The province analysis also 

indicates shrub steppe acres did not decrease in all provinces and actually 

increased in five provinces (e.g., Mountain Snake) along with agriculture. 

Subbasin analyses in these provinces should address the reasons for these 

increases in shrub steppe. Eastside conifer forest increases at the basin 

level can be attributed to provinces on the west slope of the Rocky 

Mountains (e.g., Mountain Snake) but not all provinces had increases in 

this wildlife habitat type. A decrease in acres of this wildlife habitat type 

occurred in the Upper Snake and Columbia Plateau. 

Alternatives 

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

Wildlife habitat types estimated by Vail et al. 2001 (Figure IV.B.7) clearly 

show a loss of over 10 million acres of the agriculture wildlife habitat type 

in the future under all three alternatives. Alternative 2, which addresses 

dam removal, reduces the agriculture habitat slightly less than the other 

two alternatives that do not propose dam removal. Alternative 6 reduces 

the agriculture habitat slightly more than Alternative 5 (Table IV.B.1), a 

slight increase in eastside conifer forest is approximately equal for each 

alternative. The decrease in shrub steppe is slightly greater in Alternative 

2 than the other two alternatives.

Province Scale Analysis

The changes in wildlife habitat types are similar for each alternative 

(generally less than 10 percent difference between each alternative for 

each wildlife habitat type). Given this similarity among alternatives, the 

province scale analysis focuses on one alternative with the knowledge that 

trends discussed apply to all alternatives. Alternative 2 shows that the 

changes in the agriculture wildlife habitat type are quite different for each 

province (Figure IV.B.8). One province, Blue Mountain, showed a 651-acre 

increase and the other nine provinces showed decreases. The decreases 

varied from 3 to 4.6 million acres in the Upper Snake and Columbia 

Plateau to about 11 thousand acres in the Columbia Gorge. The changes in 



Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-5

shrub steppe also varied across the provinces with increases in the 

Columbia Plateau and Upper Snake provinces. The largest decrease (1.6 

million acres) in the shrub steppe habitat was in the Middle Snake. 

Decreases in other provinces were less than half a million acres. Eastside 

conifer forest increased in nine of the ten provinces. The largest gain, 209 

thousand acres, was in the Inter Mountain province. One province, the 

Mountain Snake, had a slight (13 thousand acre) decrease.

Biological Performance

Biological performance for the black bear and the bald eagle were assessed 

using a Habitat Condition Index (HCI) to estimate capacity (see Methods). 

As discussed in Methods, necessary fine-scale data on riparian and 

aquatic habitats were not available for calculating an HCI for the 

American beaver. HCI results for the black bear and the bald eagle were 

calculated for each 6-HUC (in the range of the species) and are presented 

here in three formats: HCI maps, cumulative integrated capacity curves, 

and HCI change maps. 6-HUC information was aggregated at two levels 

for analysis: the basin and province. Two types of presentation are 

illustrated for the species level analysis. The black bear analysis is very 

general, and utilizes HCI maps and cumulative integrated capacity 

curves. The bald eagle analysis relies on HCI maps, change maps, and 

histograms.

The HCI maps plot an HCI value for each 6-HUC. The highest HCI values 

are represented as dark green and the shade of green lightens as the HCI 

values decrease with white equivalent to zero. White 6-HUCs represent 

areas outside the range of the species. Change maps have been prepared 

to illustrate where the greatest and least changes are expected. Dark red 

shows the greatest negative changes while the pink and white 6-HUCs 

illustrate the least negative change. Dark blue shows the greatest positive 

change while the light blue shows the least positive change. This analysis 

is especially good for alerting managers to possible problem areas for 

proposed alternatives.

Black Bear 

HCI calculations for historic wildlife capacity are shown on the HCI maps 

as dark green areas (Figure IV.B.9) where one would expect black bear to 

have been abundant in the 1850s. For example, the Cascade Range from 

central Oregon to Canada and the western front range of the Rocky 

Mountains in Idaho and Montana show the darkest green 6-HUCs. Areas 

where bears have never been abundant such as southeastern Oregon and 

southern Idaho are white. The current wildlife capacity (Figure IV.B.10) 

shows less (than historic) dark green in the above areas and noticeable 


Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-6

absence of bears in populated and agricultural areas (e.g., Willamette 

Valley.) This is best illustrated in a comparison of the cumulative 

integrated capacity curves for historic and current wildlife habitat types 

(Figures IV.B.11 and IV.B.12). The historic curve shows 1000 6-HUCs with 

a 0.92 (or greater) HCI whereas the current curve shows a general 

reduction in HCI value with 1000 6-HUCs valued at 0.87 (or greater) HCI. 

All three alternatives resulted in HCI maps that are similar and hence are 

not illustrated. Little change was observed at the basin scale between 

alternatives due to the relatively small amount of proposed change in 

forested wildlife habitats. A comparison between current black bear HCI 

and the alternatives is also slight and difficult to detect with HCI maps at 

the basin level. Cumulative integrated capacity curves illustrate the subtle 

differences between current (Figure IV.B.12) and the alternatives (Figure 

IV.B.13), represented as Alternative 6. The alternatives show a small 

increase in higher value 6-HUCs (probably due to an increase in carcasses 

in 75 6-HUCs) but a larger increase in lower value 6-HUCs (i.e., below 0.4 

HCI). This indicates that the alternatives could have a positive impact on 

lower quality black bear habitat. The positive impact illustrated in the 

cumulative integrated capacity curves is likely due to the projected 

reduction in roading. The HCI assessment method (i.e., the literature) 

gives considerable emphasis to the negative influence of roads on black 

bear.

As one considers the results of the black bear analysis it is important to 

remember the coarse scale of the analysis and not rely on the results for 

decision making regarding fish and wildlife recovery. Of greater 

importance is the result that indicates little is being done to enhance black 

bear habitat in forested environments and possible consequences of such 

an alternative strategy for fish. For example, this result might stimulate a 

fisheries biologist to ask if there will there be adequate forests to produce 

large woody debris for future aquatic habitat improvements. If as a result 

of this analysis the alternative is modified to include strategies in forested 

environments, the fish biologists might coordinate the location (i.e., 

landscape) for these activities to provide the most benefit for fish as well 

as higher quality bear habitat. In addition, managers at the subbasin scale 

of analysis should be aware that decisions to benefit fish while beneficial 

for bear in some places could be detrimental for bear in other places. 

Forest structure data that may be available for subbasin analyses 

(especially in stringers through shrub-steppe habitats) will likely be 

important for examining potential benefits for fish as well as bear. 

Fish and wildlife interaction is a key interest of the framework analysis. 

The black bear HCI analysis includes the fish carcass variable that allows a 

simple but important interaction between fish distribution and black bear 



Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-7

habitat value. The importance of fish carcass data can be further 

examined at the subbasin scale by expanding the carcass variable to 

include carcass abundance (versus presence or absence in the current HCI 

analysis) and seasonal use across the landscape. 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle analysis is a little more detailed that the black bear analysis 

and illustrates how species-specific data might be presented in a more 

quantitative format. The use of data in Table IV.B.1 and histograms helps 

to identify areas where alternatives might have a negative influence on 

this threatened species. 

Historic Habitat for Bald Eagle

Columbia Basin and Province Scale Analyses

HCI calculations for the historic wildlife capacity show few dark green 6-

HUCs and relatively few 6-HUCs with low (i.e., 0.10) HCI values (Figure 

IV.B.14). Some of this is due to the large areas of shrub steppe (poor bald 

eagle habitat). Another explanation is the general lack of fine scale 

information on wetlands, especially narrow riparian wetlands, from the 

1850s. For example, much of the narrow (i.e., less than a kilometer wide) 

riparian stringer wetlands that were likely present in historic conditions 

are under-represented at a coarse-mapping resolution of 1 kilometer. 

Areas along major rivers such as the Willamette and Snake are probably 

accurately represented on the historic map but few of these areas have 

high HCIs. The linear nature of suitable wildlife habitat for the bald eagle 

is not conducive to averaging across provinces for either historic or 

current times. Instead, the analysis focuses on change in distribution and 

percent of 6-HUCs increasing or decreasing in HCI value from historic to 

current.

Current Habitat for Bald Eagle

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

The current wildlife capacity for the bald eagle (Figure IV.B.15) shows 

more dark green 6-HUCs (than Historic) and a wider distribution of 

colored 6-HUCs. For example, the Columbia Plateau and north-central 

Oregon are mostly lighter shades of green. The cumulative integrated 

capacity curves for the historic (Figure IV.B.16) and current (Figure 

IV.B.17) clearly illustrate the above points. The historic curve is truncated 

showing less than half of the 6-HUCs occupied by bald eagles, while the 

current curve (Figure IV.B.17) extends to the right showing more 6-HUCs 

occupied and more HCI values between 0.25 and 0.80. Approximately 56 

percent of the 6-HUCs showed in increase in HCI from historic to current. 




Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-8

During the same period about 30 percent of the 6-HUCs showed a 

decrease. 

Province Scale Analysis

The percent positive change in HCI for each province from historic to 

current condition was above 75 percent for the Columbia Cascade, 

Mountain Columbia and Upper Snake (Figure IV.B.18). All of the other 

provinces showed some moderate positive percent changes. Each 

province also showed some 6-HUCs with negative changes. The three 

provinces that showed the most positive percent change also showed the 

least negative change. The province with the largest negative percent 

change was the Columbia Gorge (77 percent) followed by the Blue 

Mountain, Inter Mountain, Lower Columbia, and Mountain Snake, which 

were all around -60 percent.

Alternatives: Future Habitat for Bald Eagle

Columbia Basin Scale Analysis

HCI maps produced for the three alternatives are very similar. Figure 

IV.B.19 indicates all three alternatives showed 29 percent positive and 47 

percent negative change for current to alternative conditions. In addition 

there is a larger percent change for current to alternatives than there was 

for historic to current. Thus it appears that the alternatives could 

potentially have a negative influence on bald eagles across the basin.

 A closer look at the difference between Alternative 2 and the current map 

using a change detection map (Figure IV.B.20) shows where the negative 

influences might occur.

Province Scale Analysis

The change map (Figure IV.B.20) illustrates changes in HCI values for 

each 6-HUC and only the lower 25 percent and the upper 25 percent of 

change detected is plotted as red (negative) or blue (positive). The 

changes illustrated are small but indicate concentrations of red in the 

Columbia Plateau, the Willamette (Lower Columbia province) and Snake 

(Upper Snake province) Rivers. Much of the red color crosses province 

and subbasin boundaries and as a consequence efforts to address areas of 

potential concern need to be coordinated among the managers. Dark blue 

areas are interspersed across the basin with slightly higher occurrence 

along the Cascade Range (Mountain Columbia, Figure IV.B.21). Light 

blue is also interspersed across the basin with slightly higher occurrence 

along the front range of the Rocky Mountains. The reason for the possible 

negative influence of alternatives on bald eagles could be due to a number 

of factors such as the coarse scale of the data (i.e., wetland/riparian 




Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-9

stringers being under represented or the emphasis on feeding habitat 

versus breeding habitat since nest site information was not available for 

the whole basin) or the conversion of agriculture to shrub steppe (which is 

not associated with bald eagle use.) 

The most important result is that the concept of possible negative 

influences on bald eagles needs to be carried into the Multi-Species 

Framework analyses at the subbasin level of the hierarchical analysis. 

Finer scale and more complete data (e.g., nest locations) at the subbasin 

level will provide better insight into possible negative influences for the 

bald eagle as well as wildlife in general. For example, the sandhill crane is 

associated with farmed fields especially during migration through the 

Basin. They forage in wetlands associated with agricultural fields and eat 

grains that remain in stubble fields. Loss of these agricultural and 

associated resources, without mitigative compensation, could be 

particularly harsh for species such as the sandhill crane whose numbers 

have been declining in recent years. Mitigation should not only consider 

the loss of habitat for species such as the crane but also the interim loss of 

wetland and riparian habitats that have established with contemporary 

management. Thus biological objectives for alternatives should also 

include interim biological objectives (especially for rare wildlife habitats) 

that reflect the time to implement strategies as well as the relationship to 

adjacent management areas (Palik et al. 2000).

American Beaver 

The American beaver was selected as a species to assess because of the 

obvious (Schlosser and Kallemeyn 2000) association with aquatic 

ecosystems as well as fish diversity and abundance. An HCI assessment 

of the American beaver included 3 components: physical condition, cover, 

and food. Data collection for this species was problematic and thus the 

assessment met with failure. This was because beaver is linked to small 

(as well as large) streams in headwater areas of the Columbia Basin, and 

their streams and associated riparian environments were not mappable at 

the scale of this assessment. This is where the cycle of dam building and 

dam decay influence hydraulic and fish habitat diversity. In the 

headwater areas of the basin, these processes occur at a relatively fine 

scale compared to the coarse scale used for whole basin analyses. After 

months of searching and trial runs, we found that there was no consistent 

habitat data for the upper portions of most 6-HUCs. For example, 

gradient (low gradient is an important habitat element for beaver) data 

was available only for the main channels of rivers such as the John Day. 

While beaver occur in these main channels their habitat is usually a bank 

den rather than the dam and lodge habitat in low gradient headwater 

wetland complexes. Consequently the gradient for main stems was only 
Section IV.B — Results, Wildlife

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.B-10

good for assessing bank denning, which was not particularly related to 

dam building and fish habitat diversity. We tried to develop indices for 

headwater gradient such as “sinuosity index” or miles of stream per 

square mile of the 6-HUC. In all cases, data were either not available or if 

available they were in a format significantly different from other portions 

of the basin. For this and other reasons, we concluded that the beaver 

HCI analyses, unlike the bear analyses, are fine-scale dependent. 

We encourage subbasin managers to retain the beaver as an evaluation 

species and to seek the finer-scale data necessary to evaluate beaver 

habitat quality. As beaver analyses are made at the subbasin and 

watershed scales, these analyses can be aggregated up to the subbasin and 

province scales. See Appendix F for the beaver habitat assessment 

method for HCI developed by the EWG.
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-1

RESULTS - FISH AND WILDLIFE INTEGRATION

This section of the Results addresses fish; it is organized as follows:

Integrated Assessments of Fish and Wildlife Populations and Ecological 

Functions

Influence of Habitats on Populations and Functions

Influence of Populations on Themselves

Influence of Populations on Other Populations

Influence of Populations on Habitats and KECs

Integrated Assessments of Fish and Wildlife Populations and 

Ecological Functions

This section presents the results of the integrated assessments of fish and 

wildlife populations and ecological functions. As shown in Figure IV.C.1 in 

Methods, we focused on specific interactions between habitats and 

populations, and between fish and wildlife. 

The results of the analyses for fish and wildlife interaction also include the 

Ecosystem Functions Analyses. The functions analyses presented in this 

report build, in part, on the work compiled by Cederholm et al. (2000) who 

identified ecological relationships between Pacific salmon and wildlife. In this 

section, we first briefly review the fish and wildlife relationships presented 

and functional questions asked in Cederholm et al. (2000.) Our analysis 

suggests how functional assessments might be continued at the subbasin 

scale by relating specific management activities to specific habitat elements 

that occur within each wildlife habitat type (see Appendix K).

Influence of Habitats on Populations and Functions

One result pertains to the influence of habitats (including KECs) on 

populations of fish and wildlife. 

Influence of Fish Habitats and KECs on Fish Populations – Use of EDT

For fish, this was analyzed by using the EDT model to determine how the 

array of fish habitats potentially influence fish populations. Results are 

presented in the Fish-Results section.
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-2

Influence of Wildlife Habitats and KECs on Wildlife Populations and 

Functions – Use of SHP.

For wildlife, we analyzed the influence of wildlife habitats and KECs on 

wildlife populations and KEFs by using the SHP database to determine (1) 

how wildlife habitats, terrestrial vegetation structural conditions (structural 

or successional stages of wildlife habitats), and KECs (“habitat elements” in 

the SHP database) influence the presence of or habitat value for wildlife 

species, and then (2) the arrays of KEFs associated with those wildlife species. 

At the broad scale of this assessment, we could map and analyze only gross 

changes – that is, only changes in amount or types—of wildlife habitats. 

Changes in vegetation structural conditions and in KECs, which are finerscale elements of habitats, could not be mapped and analyzed at the broad 

scale. They will need to be analyzed at the next finer scale of resolution, such 

as in a subbasin assessment, because there are no consistently mapped, 

broad-scale GIS data on these conditions for the entire Basin.

Results of the broad-scale influence of wildlife habitats on wildlife species 

were brought into the functional analyses to determine how gross changes in 

historic and future amounts and types of wildlife habitats might affect 

wildlife species and thence their arrays of KEFs. Results suggest that some 

wildlife communities have undergone major changes since historic time, 

particularly with the loss of native shrub steppe, conversion to agriculture, 

and increase in Eastside mixed conifer forest (Figure IV.B.5) with concomitant 

changes in associated wildlife species and functions. See previous section for 

details.

Influence of Fish Habitats and KECs on Wildlife Populations

One way to think about integrating management of salmon and wildlife is to 

determine what wildlife species would benefit from providing habitat for 

salmon. We asked this question by first listing the habitat elements associated 

with salmon (Wildlife Methods) and then querying the wildlife database to 

determine which wildlife species use each of those habitat elements. At least 

some of the 74 types of wildlife habitat elements are used by various life 

stages of chinook salmon (Wildlife Methods). A number of wildlife species 

are also associated with each of these habitat elements. Some examples are 

shown in Figure IV.C.15. For example, one habitat element related to chinook 

salmon is “open water in rivers or streams.” Some 107 wildlife species are 

associated with this habitat element, and 26 of these wildlife species have a 

strong or recurrent relationship with salmon as feeders on one or more 

salmon life stages. Many wildlife species are also associated with the salmon 

habitat elements of open water in lakes and ponds, oxbows, water depth, 

beaver and muskrat activity, water velocity, pools in rivers, and others.
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-3

The results of the analyses to address the influence of fish habitats and fish 

KECs on wildlife populations include the HCI method where output from the 

EDT fish analyses served as input to the American black bear HCI analysis 

(presented above). This resulted in an increase in HCI values for American 

black bear that occurred in the 75 subwatersheds that would have salmon 

reintroduced as a result of improving fish runs. 

The SHP database suggests that many wildlife species are associated with 

KECs affecting fish. For example, throughout the Columbia River Basin, 133 

wildlife species are influenced by water characteristics, including 16 herps 

influenced by levels of dissolved oxygen, 66 wildlife species influenced by 

water depth, 17 species by water temperature, 36 species by water velocity, 

and so on. Some 203 wildlife species are associated with rivers and streams, 

including 17 species positively associated with cobble or gravel stream 

substrates, and 12 species with coarse woody debris in streams or rivers. 

Also, seven wildlife species associate with stream riffles, and at least some 69 

wildlife species are affected by seasonal flooding of open water. Many other 

such associations are described by the database for freshwater as well as 

coastal and marine KECs and wildlife species.

It is clear that managing for habitat for fish, including salmon, can positively 

influence a wide array of wildlife species as well. The SHP databases provide 

a means by which such wildlife species can be listed for specific wildlife 

habitats and Basin-wide.

KECs (Habitat Elements) Shared by Fish and Wildlife

Some 74 categories and subcategories of wildlife KECs are shared between 

fish and wildlife. It may be of interest to managers to know which KECs 

these are, in order to know which wildlife species may be influenced (mostly 

positively) by managing KECs for fish species, and which fish KECs can 

influence the most number of wildlife species. Further, the SHP database can 

be used to generate lists of wildlife species associated with each of these KECs 

or combinations thereof.

Among wildlife species associated with KECs shared with fish, the most 

number of wildlife species (>100 species) are associated with lakes, ponds, 

and reservoirs; open water zones of lakes; riverine wetlands; and open water 

zones of rivers (Figure IV.C.2). This holds for species of wildlife associated 

with these KECs, as well as those wildlife species that also have a strong or 

recurrent relationship with salmon (that is, that commonly feed on salmon). 

Influence of Populations on Themselves

The fish-wildlife interaction Figure IV.C.1 also depicts that at least some 

populations of fish or wildlife might have some feedback or densitydependent influences. We included density-dependency for the wildlife 
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-4

populations models for American black bear and bald eagle. This was done 

through estimating the factor “percent key habitat” which uses an HCI 

method. Percent key habitat, in turn, is one of the variables used to calculate 

carrying capacity. 

For fish, density-dependence was considered as part of the Beverton-Holt 

formulation in the EDT model. Specifically, density-dependence was 

considered in the EDT model runs for Chinook. This was done by calculating 

P/C (production/capacity), which is a density-dependence factor in 

aggregate population modeling. 

Density dependent relations, however, were not used in the functional 

analysis of fish and wildlife KEFs, because these were categorical relations, 

not population, demographic, or rate models.

Influence of Populations on Other Populations

The direct influence of populations of fish on populations of wildlife, or vice 

versa, were major interactions between fish and wildlife assessed for this 

report. In part, this is because such interactions are direct, mostly represented 

by predation or feeding, and have been studied or at least categorized in 

greater detail than many of the other fish-wildlife interactions discussed here.

The two major direct population interactions we evaluated were the influence 

of fish populations on wildlife populations, and the influence of wildlife 

populations on fish populations. 

Influence of Fish Populations on Wildlife Populations 

We evaluated the influence of fish populations on wildlife populations by 

reference to the major report by Cederholm et al. (2000), who explored 

salmon as prey for wildlife.

According to the SHP database, some 605 species of terrestrial or marine 

amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals currently or historically occur in 

Washington and Oregon. According to the Cederholm et al. report, of these 

605 species, some 137 have a positive feeding relation with salmon. The 137 

species include nine wildlife species with a strong consistent relation (the 

wildlife species is supported by salmon), 59 with a recurrent relation (regular 

but not necessarily essential use of salmon), 25 with an indirect relation 

(important but indirect use of salmon, such as feeding on insects occurring on 

salmon carcasses), and 64 with a rare relation (use salmon but only in a minor 

diet role). Figure IV.C.3 depicts these associations by each salmon life stage. 

Some wildlife species have more than one type of relation and may use more 

than one salmon life stage.

There are 88 wildlife species that have what Cederholm et al. (2000) called a 

routine relation with salmon (combining strong consistent, recurrent, and 
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-5

indirect relations); these include two amphibian species, one reptile, 60 birds, 

and 25 mammals (including eight marine mammals). An additional 62 

wildlife species have an unknown relation with salmon, and with further 

study some of these species might exhibit some relation.

Across the salmon life stages and all degrees of use, some 23 wildlife species 

use the incubation stage, 50 species use the freshwater rearing stage, 64 

species use the saltwater stage, 16 species use the spawning stage, and 110 

species use the carcass stage. Figure IV.C.4 illustrates the number of strong or 

recurrent relationships by salmon life stages. At least 41 wildlife species 

aggregate at salmon congregations (Cederholm et al. 2000). 

The wildlife species attracted to the various salmon life stages in turn perform 

specific key ecological functions (KEFs) or roles in their environment that 

could affect the presence, distribution, and abundance of environmental 

factors for, or populations of, other fish and wildlife species (Wildlife 

Methods). Understanding how salmon influence the broader functional web 

of the ecosystems in which they reside is an important facet of ecosystem 

management, particularly in regard to determining how salmon management 

can affect broader ecosystem functions affecting sustainability, productivity, 

and biodiversity. To urge managers to think functionally, 

Cederholm et al. (2000) suggested the following questions:

• In what way does providing for salmon also provide for a wider array of 

ecological functions of wildlife species associated with salmon?

• What are those functions?

• How do different kinds of salmon-wildlife relations, and different salmon 

life stages, provide for an array of ecological functions?

They concluded that salmon provide a causal basis for a wide variety of 

wildlife species that in turn perform a surprisingly broad array of ecological 

functions. Those functions cross many types of habitats including, and 

extending well beyond, the salmon-bearing aquatic systems per se.

Among the many kinds of ecological functions provided by wildlife that are 

associated with salmon are some that are provided more or less uniquely by 

each salmon life stage. The ecological wildlife functions that are unique to 

each salmon life stage are as follows.

• Wildlife that use the incubation stage of salmon include species that are 

secondary cavity users or that are primary excavators of small ground 

burrows that are used by other wildlife species. 

• The saltwater rearing stage of salmon provides uniquely for wildlife that 

create aerial or aquatic structures used by other wildlife species. 
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-6

• The spawning stage of salmon provides uniquely for wildlife that are also 

spermivores (seed-eaters), grazers, frugivores (fruit-eaters), root-feeders, 

and bark, cambium or tree bole feeders; for wildlife that might control 

other vertebrate populations through predation, that create feeding 

opportunities for other wildlife species, that are primary cavity or large 

ground-burrow excavators, or secondary ground runway users; or that 

can kill standing trees (creating snags) and fragment standing and down 

wood (adding to soil organic matter). 

• The carcass stage of salmon provides uniquely for fungivores (fungieaters), for insectivorous wildlife that might control some insect 

populations, and for wildlife that serve as interspecific hosts for avian nest 

parasites (principally the brown-headed cowbird). 

• The freshwater rearing stage of salmon, although providing for many 

wildlife species and their associated ecological roles, does not necessarily 

provide for any unique wildlife KEF categories. 

The patterns of fish-wildlife functional relations suggest that, most or all 

salmon life stages contribute to providing for the full array of all wildlife 

ecological functions; no one (or two, or three) salmon life stage provides for 

all functions. Also note the unique wildlife ecological functions provided by 

spawning and carcass stages, which may be truncated with purely hatcheryraised fish.

The brief review of Cederholm et al. (2000) asks: in what way does providing 

for salmon also provide for a wider array of ecological functions of wildlife 

associated with salmon? The Ecosystem Functional Analyses conducted for 

the framework address this question by assessing ecological functional 

redundancy for wildlife as a result of the three proposed Alternatives that 

provide for salmon. The functional redundancy analysis is outlined and the 

results for the Alternatives are presented below. Details of these analyses are 

available upon request from the framework office. Functional redundancy 

was evaluated basin-wide by showing the change in the weighted value of 

wildlife habitat type from one Alternative to another. Specifically, the amount 

of wildlife habitat that changed from one Alternative to another was 

displayed using a matrix that showed the number of wildlife species 

associated with each Key Ecological Function by wildlife-habitat type. The 

total amount of change in functional redundancy for each Alternative is 

mapped in a geographic information system (GIS).

Maps illustrating changes from historic and current conditions were created 

to assess the amount of change from historic or current conditions by 

alternative. Historic condition has sometimes been defined as normative 

condition. Figure IV.C.5 shows the total change (across all KEFs) in functional 

diversity (number of KEF categories weighted by the number of species 
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-7

performing each KEF) between historic and current conditions. To depict the 

various alternative’s total change in functional diversity using historic 

conditions as a baseline, see Figure IV.C.6, Figure IV.C.7, and Figure IV.C.8. 

Alternatives that have been assessed using current conditions as a baseline 

can be seen in Figure IV.C.9, Figure IV.C.10, and Figure IV.C.11.

A few selected key ecological functions (KEFS) for wildlife were also 

evaluated to see how they might be influenced by each set of alternatives. 

Three KEFs that were chosen were: transportation of viable seeds, spores, 

plants or animals; primary cavity excavator; and physically affects (improves) 

soil structure, aeration typically by digging. Because of space, all 51 maps are 

not presented here, but three maps illustrate the potential of doing such an 

evaluation (see Figure IV.C.12, Figure IV.C.13, and Figure IV.C.14) that show 

change in historic to current conditions for each KEF. 

Salmon would have the ability to interact with wildlife in areas where there is 

either an overlap in the use of aquatic KECs or where salmon occur or 

aggregate. Figure IV.C.15 gives an example of aquatic KECs where 

overlapping uses may occur. Further, Figure IV.C.16 shows an example of 

chinook salmon KEFs that potentially can influence wildlife. Of these 

functions, eating aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, and carrier and 

transmitter of vertebrate diseases, may have the greatest potential for 

demonstrating cause-and-effect relationships regarding how fish can 

influence wildlife.

Overall, results of this analysis suggest that providing KECs for salmon 

benefits a wide array of wildlife species as well. Of course, individual wildlife 

species also use other KECs, but the analysis suggests than there is an 

economy to be gained by integrating habitat requirements for fish and 

wildlife.

Further, one can identify which management activities or strategies can affect 

each habitat element. In this way, one can determine how proposed land 

management activities under a specific planning alternative, for example, can 

affect habitat elements and thereby affect both salmon and wildlife associated 

with those elements. Figure IV.C.17 shows the schematic of how these 

relationships exist with the different data sets.

One example of this concept is, if Alternative 5 called for a strategy to 

enhance wildlife habitat by changing the operational aspects of road 

maintenance and road use, then the SHP database could be queried to 

determine the array of habitat elements, and thence the wildlife species that 

use these habitat elements, that could be affected by such a management 

activity. Results show that 17 habitat elements could be affected by this 

management activity. Upon further re-evaluation, we could look at two 

habitat elements that affect both fish and wildlife, such as beaver/muskrat 
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-8

activity and water pollution. Querying the SHP database on these habitat 

elements, we would find the former habitat element, has 50 wildlife species 

associated with it that in turn perform 61 KEFs, and the latter habitat element 

has 21 wildlife species associated with it that in turn perform 35 KEFs. 

Reviewing each KEF and species would then give a manager an idea of which 

wildlife species that might be involved and which ecological function(s) 

might be influenced from performing such a management activity.

Additional influences of fish on wildlife can be characterized by transfer of 

parasites or disease among species, particularly from fish to amphibians, 

mammals, and other species.

Fish-amphibian interactions. – Little has been written in regards to fish 

interacting with amphibians. Hence, personal contacts were made with 

several wildlife biologists who are currently working with amphibians. Two 

biologists, Deanne Olson (Forest Service, PNW, Corvallis, OR) and Charlie 

Crisafulli, (Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot Forest, Vancouver, WA) gave some 

insight in regards to amphibians potentially affected from hatchery fish via 

inoculation of several fungus forms. For instance, Olson stated, “Saprolegnia 

ferax fungus is common in fish hatcheries and it also infects native freshwater 

fishes (i.e., trout spp). Amphibian eggs, especially those of Bufo species, are 

especially susceptible to Saprolegnia fungal infections. Having communal 

oviposition and explosive breeding, an infection has been known to cause 

complete loss of a year's recruitment at a site.”

The spores of Saprolegnia ferax appear to settle in the substrate at an 

oviposition site, and quickly infect the eggs oviposited there year after year 

(the toads often use traditional microsites for oviposition) (Kiesecker and 

Blaustein 1997). It has been suggested that fish stocking could have increased 

the incidence of this fungus, but there are no "before" data on fungi. UV-B 

radiation and Saprolegnia are synergistic in that UV appears to make the eggs 

more vulnerable to infection (Kiesecker 1997, Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995).

Fish-mammal interactions. – In the Pacific Northwest, the common fluke 

Nanophyetus salmincola is an intestinal parasite of canids, felids, raccoons, and 

humans, and is relatively harmless. This fluke, however, can be a vector for 

the rickettsial organism, which is usually fatal to canines. This fluke is 

associated with "salmon poisoning" in dogs, although it is a slight 

misconception to say that salmon poison canids because dogs contract this 

disease from eating salmon that carry the Nanophyetus larvae. Normally, this 

fluke lives within the intestines and does not cause any sickness. But when 

the bacterium Neorickettsia helminthoeca occurs inside the fluke, the fluke can 

carry a rickettsial organism that causes the salmon poisoning. Symptoms of 

salmon poisoning include high fever, appetite loss, or depression and are 

almost always fatal to dogs, foxes, and coyotes (Disease Lab Manual, Univ. of 

Montana, 1980).
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-9

Another effect that fish can have on wildlife is with the transfer of 

tapeworms, although most tapeworms infect mostly dogs when they ingest 

fleas or non-aquatic animals. However, in the case of the tapeworm 

Diphyllobothrium latum, canids become infected by eating a fish that is infected 

with larval tapeworms. Diphyllobothrium adults can grow up to 30 feet in 

length. Their eggs are released into water through the feces of an infected 

dog, fox, mink, or even bear. The eggs are ingested by copepods, which are 

eaten by small fish. Diphyllobothrium larvae live within the muscles of fish 

and are passed up the food chain from fish to fish until they are eaten by a 

mammal, where they mature in the digestive system and lay eggs that are 

passed through the feces (American Animal Hospital Association, Columbia 

Animal Hospital, Columbia, MD, 2000). 

Fish-other species interactions. – As for fish influencing other wildlife, as with 

birds and reptiles, this interaction primarily pertains to predator-prey 

relationships. That is, certain fish species are known to be opportunistic and 

will on occasion prey upon some wildlife species. An example would be 

northern pike eating a dipper or an aquatic snake. Also, some fish will eat 

amphibians, their eggs and larvae if an opportunity presents itself.

Influence of Wildlife Populations on Fish Populations

In some instances, direct predation of wildlife on fish can influence fish 

populations. This has been the concern for least terns and sea lions feeding 

on salmon in the mouth of the Columbia River.

Influence of Populations on Habitats and KECs 

Influence of Fish Populations and KEFs on Fish Habitats and KECs

This interaction was not explicitly analyzed in this report. It may prove 

useful, however, to consider at a finer spatial scale of resolution, such as 

when considering introductions of fish species into systems containing other 

fish species.

Influence of Wildlife Populations and KEFs on Fish Habitats and KECs

We intended to use output from the American beaver HCI analysis as input 

to the fish EDT analysis but, as mentioned in the section on Wildlife Methods, 

this attempt was not possible due to lack of data on beaver habitat at the scale 

of our analysis. We did create a prototype Bayesian belief network model, 

however, that illustrates the potential of this approach (Figure IV.C.18). 

In this hypothetical example, three management alternatives or strategies are 

shown influencing habitats for American beaver and other wildlife species 

that, in turn, provide the KEF of creating aquatic structures such as by 

damming or building lodges in waterways (other such species can include 

nutria or muskrat, for example). These wildlife KEFs in turn can modify the 
Section IV.C — Results, Fish and Wildlife Integration

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.C-10

values of aquatic KECs important to salmon and other fish. As depicted in 

Figure IV.C.18, such aquatic KECs can include, for example, the degree of 

embeddedness (the extent that larger cobbles or gravel are surrounded by or 

covered by fine sediment), temperature spatial variation (the extent of water 

temperature variation within the stream reach as influenced by inputs of 

groundwater), monthly average minimum width of the wetted channel, and 

daily variation in stream flow level. In this way, wildlife KEFs can be 

explicitly and quantitatively linked to fish habitats (KECs) and then, by 

modifying those habitat values in the EDT fish population model, to fish 

populations. Figure IV.C.18 also illustrates how the value of salmon can be 

included explicitly in the model, so that the economic or social cost or benefit 

of the wildlife KEFs on salmon production, and the optimal management 

decision, can be explicitly determined. 

In summary, such an approach can be further developed from this framework 

to clearly depict alternative management activities, their influence on wildlife 

(and fish) habitats and KECs, the modifying influence of wildlife KEFs on fish 

habitats, and the resulting fish population response and associated social 

values. Further, such a construct can be used to help determine the optimal 

set of management decisions to maximize salmon value. Through sensitivity 

analysis, it can also show which factors have the greatest influence on fish, 

thereby helping prioritize monitoring or management of those factors.
Section IV.D — Implications of Findings

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.D-1

RESULTS - IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

This report has provided a framework for assessing selected species of fish 

and wildlife with regard to various management actions, conducting an 

integrated fish-wildlife and aquatic-terrestrial assessment of ecological 

assemblages, and determining effects on ecological functions of fish and 

wildlife communities. We have based our work on accepted and 

published ecological theory, and the models and databases we have used 

have undergone extensive review. However, much remains to be 

empirically validated. For example, many of the assumptions concerning 

the functional assessments – such as the value of functional redundancy 

(number of species with the same general ecological roles) in providing 

greater ecosystem stability and resilience to undue perturbations – remain 

to be tested in many ecological communities throughout the Columbia 

Basin.

As well, this report has made good progress toward explicitly addressing 

the recommendations in the report “Return to the River 2000: Restoration 

of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River ecosystem” (Independent 

Scientific Group 2000). Their recommendations included: address the 

basin and landscape, address the coupling of species to their associated 

ecosystem, address multiple species of native fish and wildlife, address 

the entire life cycle, address ecological functions of salmon and other 

species, build on a conceptual foundation of ecologically-based Scientific 

Principles, and work from a set of linked visions, goals, and objectives. 

We have worked toward meeting these recommendations.

The major lessons and concepts to be taken from our report include:

1. Major historic changes. – The USA portion of the Columbia Basin has 

undergone major change, since early historic times, that has resulted in 

the declining distribution and abundance of some native fish and wildlife 

species and habitats. Our results are consistent with other findings 

(Covington et al. 1994, Covington and Moore 1994, DellaSala et al. 1995, 

Hessburg 1993, Hessburg et al. 2000, Jensen and Bourgeron 1994, Quigley 

et al. 1996). 

2. Extending the paradigm. – Our work has extended these previous 

analyses by providing integrated fish-wildlife assessments and functional 

analyses. More specifically, we have: (1) expanded the wildlife habitat 

map and the SHP wildlife database to the entire USA portion of the 
Section IV.D — Implications of Findings

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.D-2

Columbia Basin (and our Canadian colleagues are expanding these to 

include the Canadian portion of the Basin); (2) linked the theory and 

application of fish and wildlife population models as a basis for a 

transdisciplinary analysis (sensu Regier 1978); and (3) developed an 

assessment procedure to link management activities to habitats, KECs, 

fish and wildlife populations, and integrated ecological functions.

We address several levels of ecological systems: populations, species 

assemblages, communities, and ecosystems. The EDT and HCI modeling 

address populations. The SHP databases address wildlife species 

assemblages. The functional analyses address species and community

functions. All of these combined address ecosystem conditions. 

3. Predicting management influences and cumulative effects. – The 

current and potential future influences of management activities and landuse planning on fish and wildlife populations, communities, and 

ecosystems are difficult to predict precisely. Such influences are 

sometimes difficult to separate from complicating factors and background 

natural variations inherent in such systems. However, we provide a 

framework by which such influences can be analyzed in a repeatable and 

testable fashion by using specific models (e.g., the EDT model, Figure 

IV.A.4, IV.A.5) and databases (e.g., the SHP database Figure IV.C.17). 

The influence of cumulative effects can be addressed in the Framework 

process by at least two techniques. The first involves conducting 

functional analyses to assess effects of multiple management changes on 

fish and wildlife species’ habitats, and thus on the species and their 

ecological roles (key ecological functions). In turn, results can be 

interpreted as influencing positively, neutrally, or negatively the 

functional aspects of the ecosystem. The second involves the step-up 

process where the combination of management actions for a small focused 

area (e.g., 6-HUC) can be combined with the management actions from 

other small areas to assess the cumulative effects of management actions 

over larger areas. For some species and habitats (e.g., beaver and 

headwater aquatic systems), the step-up assessment is necessary.

4. Testable hypotheses. – We suggest that local (e.g., watershed) and 

global (e.g., Columbia Basin) influences predicted from these models and 

databases can constitute a set of testable management hypotheses that can 

be generated in a repeatable, scientific manner. Through monitoring and 

adaptive management studies, the models and databases, and selected 

predictions of ecological ramifications of management effects, can be 

studied empirically. Results can be used to re-evaluate goals and 

questions, to formulate new hypotheses to be tested with modified 

management, as needed and to refine the models and data. 
Section IV.D — Implications of Findings

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page IV.D-3

5. Toward a step-down process. – The Assessment Framework we present 

in this report can be used in a step-down process to evaluate potential 

management influences in smaller areas, namely subbasins and eventually 

watersheds and 6-HUCs. In this manner, subbasin and watershed 

managers can evaluate effects of alternative management activities on fish 

and wildlife species and communities (including ecological functions). 

This would help determine the most effective or most desirable sets of 

management activities to reach clearly stated resource management 

objectives for a given subbasin. Also, the Framework allows for a step-up 

process where aggregations of subbasins and stochastic data developed at 

the lower levels can be evaluated at the higher province and basin levels 

to assure that management actions are compatible and, to prioritize which 

subbasin might need the most immediate management attention. 

6. Managing under uncertain outcomes. – There will always be 

uncertainty in predicting the future. We advise that users of this 

document, and of any subsequent refinement of our analysis methods and 

findings, understand the sets of assumptions we discussed previously. 

Uncertainty in outcomes can be stated as spreads of potential outcomes, 

such as expressed by ranges of values, confidence intervals, etc. 

Uncertainty in outcomes does not mean lack of scientific understanding of 

the systems, and thus that “anything goes” in terms of management. 

Rather, such uncertainty may mean that selected response variables of the 

system – selected species, ecological functions, or measures of community 

composition or performance – might be monitored over time to better 

determine whether the populations, communities, and ecosystems are 

changing as predicated by objectives, goals, and visions. Then, 

management activities, as well as models and databases, can be reevaluated and amended as needed, in a true adaptive management

framework.
Section V — Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page V-1

RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION

We propose a way to monitor biological outcomes to track progress 

toward meeting basin and province goals. The role of research in this 

process is also addFressed. The following topics are covered:

Conceptual Overview with Example

Three Levels of Monitoring

Implementation Monitoring

Effectiveness Monitoring

Validation Monitoring

Role of Independent Science Advisory Board

Discussion and Elaboration on the Use of Biological Objectives

Conceptual Overview with Example

The portion of the analytical framework pertaining to setting biological 

objectives (Figure V.1) links the strategies to the vision. When strategies 

accomplish the biological objectives the vision will be achieved. Biological 

objectives are described in terms of attributes that characterize the 

ecological system and that comprise input to the EDT fish model. Output 

from the EDT fish model describes biological performance, in other 

words, productivity and abundance of the populations of interest. 

Unfortunately, because of variability and response delays, it may take 

several decades before a meaningful change in biological performance is 

detected empirically (Lichatowich and Cramer 1979).

Fortunately, changes in the environmental attributes often can be detected 

more quickly than can changes in population response. The reliability of 

the environmental attributes as indicators of progress toward biological 

performance objectives depends upon the veracity of the rules used to 

estimate the latter.

Environmental attributes describe the landscape at various scales of time 

and space. To the extent that the EDT expert system, as embodied in the 

rules (Bio-rules), is a valid representation of the relationship between the 

population of interest and its environment, the environmental attributes 

predict the biological performance response. A monitoring plan devised to 

(1) track the status of environmental attributes over time, and (2) 

Section V — Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page V-2

determine the veracity of the EDT rules, is therefore a potentially very 

useful way to assess the degree to which an environmental attribute is 

moving toward the desired level of the biological objective, in the short 

term.

The Bio-rules are not site specific. They are applicable across the full 

landscape and at all levels in the spatial temporal hierarchy. Bio-rules are 

hypotheses about how the population will respond to its environment 

(e.g., Figure V.2). Some of these hypotheses are based on results of past 

studies, and others are based on expert opinions. In some cases, the 

uncertainty about the rule or hypothesis has an important effect on 

predicting the expected outcome of an action. Hypotheses that are critical 

to outcomes, that are uncertain, and that lend themselves to resolution 

through research, should be considered as priorities for future studies. 

The Bio-Rules are a set of hypotheses that can be tested through research, 

whereas the environmental attributes—which vary over time and space—

are parameters of the ecosystem that could be measured in a monitoring 

program. 

Three Levels of Monitoring

Adaptive monitoring is comprised of three levels: implementation, 

effectiveness, and validation. These levels are discussed below, relative to 

the Multi-Species Framework structure and the EDT method.

Implementation Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is used to ensure that strategies and 

treatments are implemented in accord with stated management standards 

and guidelines. It is used to determine if the basic management directives 

are correctly followed. 

Effectiveness Monitoring

This type of monitoring is used to evaluate the validity of the Bio-rules 

developed for estimating how a species will respond to changing 

environmental attributes. In short, this monitoring intends to confirm that 

the implemented strategy is having the predicted effect on the targeted 

environmental attribute. If not, then the Bio-rules will need to be changed 

to better fit the monitoring data. It is also used to determine if mid-course 

corrections to these strategies are needed due to the ineffectiveness of the 

strategy, changing environmental conditions, or real-world limitations 

(local species extinction, etc.).

Section V — Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page V-3

An additional goal of effectiveness monitoring is to distinguish treatment 

effects from other environmental variations or perturbations. This is 

achieved by using two different types of effectiveness monitoring: active 

and passive. Active monitoring refers to the classic experiment whereby a 

scientist manipulates environmental variables to determine effects on 

species performance. In passive monitoring the scientist simply tracks 

(through measurement or literature) a set of physical or biological 

variables over time in an attempt to detect major changes in the 

environment or scientific understanding of how the environment works. 

Examples of active and passive monitoring would be the testing of a new 

fish passage facility and the tracking of ocean conditions, respectively.

Validation Monitoring

Validation monitoring is used to confirm that as environmental attributes 

change, fish and wildlife populations respond as predicted by the EDT 

and or HCI models. In other words, validation monitoring tests the 

validity of the basic, underlying scientific assumptions, and tracks trends 

in population performance measures that imply that goals are being 

achieved. This might entail statistical trend analyses. Examples of this 

type of performance measure for salmon include adult returns, juvenile 

production, and harvest levels. In general, these are the types of data that 

can be used by policy makers to describe program effectiveness and 

progress to the general public, and to determine the veracity of the 

underlying assumptions used in the modeling process.

Role of Independent Science Advisory Board

A Scientific Advisory Board could be very useful to advise on multiple 

facets of the Council's plan. This board could be responsible for providing 

advice in the following areas:

1. review and approve the Bio-rules used to predict effects of different 

strategies on environmental attributes,

2. review and approve the rules used to predict the effects that changes 

in environmental attributes have on fish and wildlife performance,

3. change these Bio-rules,

4. develop performance measures,

5. select strategies for implementation,

6. evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented strategies,

7. review and approve province plans,
Section V — Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page V-4

8. change strategies and program direction, and

9. develop and implement the Council's Monitoring and Evaluation 

program.

Discussion and Elaboration on the Use of Biological 

Objectives

We propose to define biological objectives based on management goals 

and on the amount that environmental attribute(s) must be changed to 

meet the goals. The amount of change required to meet a goal also 

depends on the set of Bio-rules used in the EDT model. The Bio-rules 

should be states as testable, explicit hypotheses. The hypotheses are 

derived from the scientific literature, research studies, and specific 

analyses using statistical or modeling tools. Examples of such tools 

potentially include h-VSP developed by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and the models developed within PATH. EDT could be used to 

evaluate subbasin plans for their contribution to the larger scale (province 

and basin) vision and biological objectives.

The Council could use EDT to set biological objectives to describe the 

environmental changes needed within a province to meet the overall 

goals. Subbasin plans could then detail the strategies and actions needed 

to make these changes across the province. 

The biological objectives could also provide the basis for a regional 

monitoring and research and evaluation effort. When adopted, the 

biological objectives could be based on a set of working hypotheses 

contained within EDT. These could be tested and refined through 

research and evaluation that could lead to revision of the objectives at 

some future point. The biological objectives themselves could be 

measurable attributes that would provide a way to define progress and to 

track change through a monitoring program.

Our knowledge base about how management actions affect fish and 

wildlife is, and probably always will be, incomplete. Hence any action 

plan devised to meet a specified set of goals should be based on a working 

hypothesis, namely that the actions will result in specific, measurable 

environmental changes that, in turn, will help meet the goals. The 

biological rules of the EDT analysis explain the rationale behind the 

working hypotheses. The EDT analysis translates observable habitat 

conditions into abundance, productivity, and life history diversity 

potential for selected target species (e.g. chinook salmon).

EDT characterizes habitat in the basin in regard to some 45 environmental 

attributes that are described at the 6-HUC level. These attributes are 
Section V — Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page V-5

related through Bio-rules (hypotheses) that are used to estimate life-stage 

survival. Integration of these life stage survivals across the life history 

trajectory of the target species (e.g., chinook salmon) provides an estimate 

of the abundance, productivity, and life history diversity of the species as 

a result of the habitat conditions. 

Biological objectives would be based on three characterizations of the 

environment derived from the EDT hypotheses: (1) the Current Potential, 

(2) the adopted alternative, and (3) the Historic Potential. These 

characterizations would be developed at the basin and province scales 

based on information gathered at the 6-HUC level. The Current Potential 

describes the abundance, productivity and life history diversity of target 

species based on the habitat conditions, as they exist and on our 

knowledge represented in the Bio-rules. The Historic Potential is roughly 

equivalent to the historical condition and is a depiction of the basin and 

province based on regional climate, geology, and other parameters 

without the influence of large-scale human activities. It can be used as a 

reference point to describe change. The characterization of the adopted 

alternative will show how current environment would move toward the 

potential based on a set of management actions. The idea of the biological 

objectives is to use the environmental attributes to characterize this 

projected movement of the environment from the Current Potential to that 

of the adopted alternative, in the direction of the Historical Potential. 

Figure V.3 provides on example of how this movement might be 

accomplished. The figure shows three types of biological objectives that 

could be developed. The first is a set of attributes describing aquatic 

habitats, the second describes terrestrial habitat types, and the third 

describes biological performance using the abundance of three fish species 

as indicators. EDT would be used to describe the current state of the 

parameter (abundance, productivity, or life history diversity) based on the 

rules embedded within the EDT model, the potential for the parameter, 

and the target value associated with an alternative (or the adopted 

alternative). The biological objective describes the amount of change 

needed in the attribute within a province. Change is measured relative to 

the current state and in the direction of the potential or goal.

The figure suggests several parameters that could form biological 

objectives. While likely candidates, they are intended to demonstrate the 

concept and are not by any means exhaustive or complete. However, we 

propose that objectives have explicit criteria. We suggest that they could 

be:

• readily measurable, 

• intuitive,

Section V — Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page V-6

• capable of providing clear direction to smaller scale planning,

• effective in representing needed conditions,

• integrative across many human activities. 

It may be useful to define biological objectives as emergent properties of 

the ecosystem that would be the target of a monitoring program. They 

would be qualities that we can readily observe or measure such as 

temperature, flow, or numbers of fish. Ecological processes and function 

that are the underlying mechanisms determining emergent properties are 

the basis for the rules that are contained within EDT. These would be 

based on research and on other tools such as the NMFS h-VSP analysis or 

the models developed by PATH and Species-Habitat Project (SHP). The 

rules (hypotheses) would be tested and refined by research and 

evaluation. Examples include survival rates, trophic relationships, 

ecological redundancy, and the like. Many of these are measurable only 

under controlled circumstances such as those in a research program. Once 

understood, they would lead to better rules within EDT but would not 

need to be routinely monitored (there may be exceptions to this such as 

some survival rates).

Monitoring Aquatic habitats. While all of the attributes used within EDT 

might be important, it is likely that a smaller subset could be identified 

that would most influence many other attributes and that would be most 

influenced by management actions. Figure V.3 shows three candidate 

attributes: summer low flow, summer high temperature, and the percent 

fine sediment. The figure summarizes the results of a single alternative 

(e.g., the adopted alternative) for a single province. The bars show the 

deviation of the province with regard to each attribute relative to the 

potential for the province. Those on the left of each group show the 

current deviation of the province while those on the right show the target 

situation for an alternative or for the adopted alternative. The arrows 

refer to the biological objectives: the amount of change in an attribute 

within a province needed to meet the program goal based on the set of 

hypotheses within the EDT model.

Monitoring Terrestrial Habitats. Terrestrial habitats and aquatic habitats 

are often described in different terms, reflecting different scientific 

traditions and perspectives. While the two sides are converging, 

differences remain that should be reflected in the biological objectives. 

Terrestrial biologists generally refer to habitat types that are described on 

the basis of vegetational coverages rather than on the habitat attributes 

that are used for aquatic habitats. EDT is being adapted to provide a 

uniform structure to describe both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Figure 
Section V — Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page V-7

V.3 demonstrates how terrestrial habitat types could be handled in much 

the same way as the aquatic habitat attributes. Again, the potential, 

current, and target habitats could be displayed to derive a biological 

objective as the change in a habitat type (e.g. shrub-steppe) within a 

province in the direction of the potential.

Monitoring Biological Performance. This refers to measures of 

abundance, productivity, and diversity of specific species. These are 

calculated within EDT on the basis of the Bio-rules and the habitat 

conditions. For many, these are the bottom line for performance of the 

program and are often directly translatable into the values and qualities 

referred to in the goal for the basin. EDT could be used to set biological 

objectives for the program in terms of biological performance that could 

be expected if the other objectives are met and if the rules or hypotheses 

within the model effectively represent the behavior of the Columbia River 

ecosystem. In many ways, these biological objectives serve as the final 

check on how accurately we can depict and predict the behavior of the 

system. These measures are meaningful only over relatively long time 

frames and are the result of complex and imperfectly understood 

ecological processes. Hence, while important, they may be less revealing 

about program effectiveness in the short term, relative to other parameters 

such as the habitat attributes. 

Some measures of biological performance may be derived using other 

methods; for example, the responsible federal agencies may define criteria 

for delisting species listed under the Endangered Species Act. These 

could be incorporated and used as objectives. It is likely that the same 

procedure for monitoring and evaluation using EDT as the analytical

framework could be used to track progress toward ESA recovery goals.

At the province level, the biological objectives would guide development 

of finer-scale objectives and strategies (management actions) at the 

subbasin level. For example, if the biological objective for a province were 

to reduce average water temperatures in late summer by 25 percent, the 

job at the subbasin level would be to devise a set of strategies to achieve 

this in the most biologically effective manner at the lowest cost while 

keeping with local values and so on. The objectives would not be 

prescriptive because the Council has no regulatory authority. Instead, the 

Council could be saying that it would fund actions that are consistent with 

the goal of changing conditions within a province as described by the 

biological objectives.

The biological objectives thus provide measurable attributes to track 

progress. Summer low flow, summer high water temperature, and fine 

sediments are relatively easily measured. Following adoption of the 

program, these, and perhaps others, could be monitored to update the 
Section V — Research and Monitoring and Evaluation

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb. 2002 / Page V-8

EDT analysis. Periodically, a formal updating could occur to define 

progress. The five-year life of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife program 

stipulated in the Northwest Power Act provides a natural point to assess 

progress as well as the need to refine the biological objectives. The 

abundance of specific fish and wildlife populations (including their status 

relative to ESA delisting criteria) could be related to the biological 

objective to track progress as well. The rules within EDT that are the basis 

for derivation of the biological objectives would be the subject of 

evaluation efforts following adoption of a program. As better information 

is developed, the formal updating of the analysis could indicate the need 

to revise and update the biological objectives. 

Several lines of modeling and assessment may prove fruitful in the nearterm. Analyses of fish and wildlife interactions could explore the use of 

Bayesian belief network (BBN) models as an alternative to the HCI species 

habitat capacity models. The models may be used to assess habitat quality 

as well as proportional contributions for various species in functional 

diversity and redundancy analyses. Since USDA Forest Service has 

developed BBN models for many of the vertebrate species (fish and 

wildlife) in the basin (Raphael et al, 2001, Marcot et al, 2001), the 

Framework process could greatly benefit by coordinating modeling efforts 

with USDA Forest Service. The Ecological Work Group will also focus on 

applied aspects of the HCI, BBN, and KEF analyses by posing 

management hypotheses about which ecological functions may be in 

jeopardy if the wildlife species that perform such a function(s) are not 

maintained (Cederholm et al. 2000). Hypothesis-testing to assess 

management activities will be greatly facilitated by current efforts to 

integrate Framework Strategies with WHR management activities. Such 

work could quickly link management activities to KEF attributes for fish 

and wildlife using simple queries in the WHR database. The theoretical 

basis for the Framework methodology also provides for input of finer 

scale data to supplement the WHR database as one moves down the 

landscape hierarchy into the subbasin and watershed scales.
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 1

REFERENCES

Aleksiuk, M. 1968. Scent-mound communication, territoriality, and population regulation in beaver. J.

Mammal. 49(4):759-762.

Alexander, L. F. 1996. A morphometric analysis of geographic variation within Sorex monticolus (Insectivora: 

Soricidae). Miscellaneous Publication. University of Kansas, Natural History Museum 88: 1-54.

Allen, T. F. H., and T. W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a unified ecology.Columbia University Press, New York, 

NY.

American Ornithologists Union. 1998. Checklist of North American birds. Seventh Edition, American

Ornithologists Union, Washington D.C., USA.

Anderson, D.A., G. Christofferson, R. Beamesderfer, B. Woodard, M. Rowe, and J. Hansen. 1996. StreamNet: 

report on the status of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin - 1995. Project number 88-

108-04. Report. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Aubry, K. B. 1982. The recent history and present distribution of the red fox in Washington. Paper presented 

at the 63 rd annual meeting, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, May 1, 1982.

Aubry, K. B., and D. B. Houston. 1992. Distribution and status of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in Washington. 

Northwestern Naturalist 73: 69-79.

Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological 

Survey, North America Fauna No. 55: 1-416.

Beecham, J. J. and J. Rohlman. 1994. A Shadow in the Forest, Idaho’s Black Bear. University of Idaho Press, 

Moscow, Idaho. 245 pp.

Berggren, T.J. and L.R. Basham. 2000. Comparative survival rate study (CSS) of hatchery PIT tagged 

chinook. BPA Contract. DRAFT. Portland, OR.

Berwick, S., K. McNamara, and D. Daneke. 1986. The effects of recreation, illegal harvest and development 

on elk near Aspen, CO. In Comer, R (ed.) Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted 

Western Wildlife. Proc. II. Throne Ecological Inst., Boulder, CO.

Best, T. L. 1988. Morphologic variation in the spotted bat Euderma maculatum. American Midland Naturalist 

119: 244-252.

Bouwes, Nick; Schaller, Howard; Budy, Phaedra; Petrosky, Charles; Kiefer, Russ; Wilson, Paul; Langness, 

Olaf; Weber, Earl, and Tinus, Eric. An analysis of differential delayed mortality experienced by 

stream-type chinook salmon of the Snake River: a response by State, Tribal and USFWS technical staff 

to the 'D' analyses and discussion in the Anadromous Fish Appendix to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers' Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmonid Migration Feasibility Study. 1999.

Bradley, W. P. 1982. Some observations on feral horses on the Yakima Reservation. Paper presented at the

63 rd annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, May 1, 1982.

Brown, J. H. 1995. Macroecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILL. 269 pp.
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 2

Brueggeman, J. J. 1992. Oregon and Washington Marine Mammal and Seabird Surveys. Pacific OCS Region, 

Mineral Management Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Los Angeles, California. USA. 

Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Cederholm, C. J., D. H. Johnson, R. E. Bilby, L. G. Dominguez, A. M. Garrett, W. H. Graeber, E. L. Greda, M. 

D. Kunze, B. G. Marcot, J. F. Palmisano, R. W. Plotnikoff, W. G. Pearcy, C. A. Simenstad, and P. C. 

Trotter. 2000. Pacific salmon and wildlife - ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for 

management. Special Edition Technical Report, prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil (Manag. 

Dirs.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 141 pp. 

CH2MHill. 2000. Human effects analysis of the Multi-Species Framework alternatives. Phase II Final Report. 

CH2Mhill.

Clarke, W. C., R. E. Withler, and J. E. Shelbourn. 1992. Genetic control of juvenile life history pattern in 

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 

2300-2306.

Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and 

reptiles, Third edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, University of Kansas, 

Herpetological Circular Number 19, Lawerence, Kansas, USA.

Costanza, R. 2000. Visions of alternative (upredictable) futures and theiruse in policy analysis. Conservation 

Ecology 4(1):5 [online] URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art5.

Covington, W. W., and M. M. Moore. 1994. Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes and forest 

structure: ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forests. Pp. 153-181 in: R. N. Sampson, 

D. L. Adams, and M. J. Enzer, ed. Assessing forest ecosystem health in the inland west. Haworth 

Press, New York.

Covington, W. W., R. L. Everett, R. Steele, L. L. Irwin, T. A. Daer, and A. N. D. Auclair. 1994. Historical and 

anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the inland west of the United States. Pp. 13-63 in: R. N. 

Sampson, D. L. Adams, and M. J. Enzer, ed. Assessing forest ecosystem health in the inland west. 

Haworth Press, New York.

Crow, T. R. and E.J. Gustafson. 1997. Concepts and methods of ecosystem management: Lessons from 

landscape Ecology. Pages 34-57 in Boyce, M. S. and A. Haney, editors. Ecosystem Management. Yale 

University Press, New Haven & London.

Csuti, B., A. J. Kimmerling, T. A. O=Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, M. M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of 

Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Dale, V. H., S. Brown, R. A. Haeuber, N. T. Hobbs, N. Huntly, R. J. Naiman,W. E. Riebsame, M. G. Turner, 

and T. J. Valone. 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological 

Applications 10(3):639-670.

Defenders of Wildlife. 1998. Oregon's Living Landscape. Defenders of Wildlife. Portland, OR. 218 pp.

DellaSala, D. A., D. M. Olson, and S. L. Crane. 1995. Ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation; 

applications to inland Pacific Northwest forests. Pp. 139-160 in: D. M. Baumgartner and R. L. Evertt, 

ed. Proceedings of ecosystem management in western interior forests. Washington State University 

Press, Pullman WA.

DeMaynadier, P. and M. Hunter. 1997. The role of keystone ecosystems in landscapes. in Boyce, M. S. and A. 

Haney, editors. Ecosystem Management. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 3

den Boer, P. J. 1968. Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Biotheoretical 18(19): 165-193.

Department of Interior. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Dvornich, K. M., K. R. McAllister, and K. Aubry. 1997. Amphibians and reptiles of Washington State: 

Location data and predicted distribution in: K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M.

Dvornich, editors. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of

Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Everett, R., P. Hessburg, J. Lehmkuhl, M. Jensen, and P. Bourgeron. 1994. Old forests in dynamic landscapes: 

dry-site forests of eastern Oregon and Washington. J. Forestry (Jan):22-25.

Fielder, P.C. and R. G. Starkey. 1986. Bald Eagle perch-sites in eastern Washington. Northwest Science 

60:186-190.

Fish Passage Center of the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. 1999. Fish Passage Center Annual 

Report 1998. Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority, Portland, Oregon.

Fraser, J. D. 1985. The impact of human activities on Bald Eagle populations: a review. In J.M. Gerrard and 

T.N. Ingram (eds). The Bald Eagle in Canada. Pp. 68-84. The Eagle Foundation, Apple River, IL.

Frost, D. R., and R. M. Timm. 1992. Phylogeny of plecotine bats (Chiropetera: Vespertilionidae): summary of 

the evidence and proposal of a logically consistent taxonomy. American Museum Novitate 3034: 1-

16.

Garrett, M. G.; J. W. Watson, and R. G. Anthony. 1993. Bald eagle home range and habitat use in the 

Columbia River Estuary. J Wildl. Mgmt. 57:19-27.

Gerrard, J. M.; D.W. A. Whitfield; P. Gerrard; P. N. Gerrard, and W. J. Maher. 1978. Migratory movements 

and plumage of subadult Saskatchewan Bald Eagles. Canadian Field-Naturalist 92:375-382.

Gilbert, C. H. Age at maturity of the Pacific Coast Salmon of the genus Oncorhynchus. Bulletin of the Bureau 

of Fisheries. 1913; 32, 1910-1914. 

Gilligan, J., M. Smith, D. Rogers, and A. Contreras. Birds of Oregon. Cinclus Publications, McMinnville,

Oregon, USA.

Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists. 

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England.

Green, N. 1985. The Bald Eagle. In: R. L. DiSilvestro (ed.). Audubon wildlife report- 1985. pp. 508-531. The 

National Audubon Society, New York, NY.

Grier, J. W. 1980. Modeling approaches to Bald Eagle population dynamics. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8:316-322.

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard 

terminology. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(1):173-182. 

Hall, R. E. 1981. The mammals of North America. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New 

York, USA. 

Hann, W. J., J. L. Jones, R. E. Keane, P. F. Hessburg, and R. A. Gravenmier. 1998. Landscape dynamics. J. 

Forestry 96(10):10-15.

Hart, D. and P. Whitney, 1999. Developing a Wildlife Component for the Ecosystem Diagnosis and 

Treatment (EDT) Method. 11 pp. Draft available from the Framework Office, Pacific Northwest 
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 4

Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council, 851 S. W. Sixth Ave., Suite 1100, Portland, 

Oregon, 97204-1348. 

Healey, M. C. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). C. Groot; L. Margolis. Pacific 

salmon life histories. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press; 1991: 311-393. 

Hermata, A.R. 1989. Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus. in: Tim W. Clark; Ann H. Harvey; Robert D. 

Dorn; David L. Genter, and Craig Groves, editors. Rare, sensitive, and threatened species of the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Jackson, Wyoming: Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative. pp. 

65-67.

Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, R. B. Salter, R. D. Ottmar, and E. Alvarado. 2000. Recent changes (1930s-1990s) 

in spatial patterns of interior northwest forests, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 136(1-3):53-

83.

Hessburg, P. F., editor. 1993. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume III: assessment. USDA 

Forest Service, Wenatchee WA. (Also reprinted as Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-329, USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland OR, February 1994).

Hill, E. P. 1982. Beaver. In Wild mammals of North America, Biology-Management-Economics. Eds. J. A. 

Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. pp.256-281.

Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 377 

pp.

Holling, C. S. 1996. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for people. Ecol. Applic. 

6(3):733-735.

Huff, M. H., R. D. Ottmar, E. Alvarado, R. E. Vihnanek, J. F. Lehmkuhl, P.F. Hessburg, and R. L. Everett. 

1995. Historical and current forest landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: linking 

vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke production. USDA Forest 

Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-355. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland OR. 43 pp.

Independent Scientific Group. 1996. Return to the river: restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River 

Ecosystem. 96-6. Prepublication Copy. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA.

Jacoby, M.E., G.V. Hilderbrand, C. Servheen, C.C. Schwartz, S.M. Arthur, T.A. Hanley, C.T. Robbins, and R. 

Michener. 1999. Trophic relations of brown and black bears in several Western North American 

ecosystems, J. Wildl. Manage. 63(3):921-929.

Jaksic, F. M., P. Feinsinger, and J. E. Jimenez. 1996. Ecological redundancy and long-term dynamics of 

vertebrate predators in semiarid Chile. Cons. Biol. 10(1):252-262. 

Jenkins, J. M., and R. E. Jackman. 1993. Mate and nest site fidelity in a resident population of bald eagles. 

Condor 95:1053-1056.

Jenkins, S. H. and P. E. Busher. 1979. North American Beaver (Castor canadensis). The American Society of 

Mammalogists. Mammalian Species (No. 120). Provo, Utah.

Jensen, M. E., and P. S. Bourgeron, ed. 1994. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume II: 

ecosystem management: principles and applications. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-318. Portland, Oregon.
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 5

Johnson, D. H., and T. A. O’Neil. 2001. Oregon and Washington wildlife species and their habitats. Pp. 1-21 

in: D. Johnson and T. O’Neil, Manag. Dirs. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. 

Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil. 2000. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon

State University Press. Corvallis, OR.

Johnson, R. E. and K. M. Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial mammals of Washington State: Location data and

predicted distributions. Volume 3 in: K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M. Dvornich,

editors. Washington State Gap Analysis, Final Report. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Jones, J. K., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992. Revised Checklist of 

North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.

Jonkel, C.J., I.M. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildl. Monog. No. 27. 55 pp.

Kareiva, P. and L. E. Mobrand. 1999. Reconciling EDT and CRI as alternative decision systems: two is better 

than one. White paper. NWPPC web page.

Karl, J. W., P. J. Heglund, E. O. Garton, J. M. Scott, N. M. Wright, and R. L. Hutto. 2000. Sensitivity of species 

habitat-relationship model performance to factors of scale. Ecological Applications 10(6):1690-1705. 

Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological 

applications 1(1): 66-84.

Kiesecker, J. M., and A. R. Blaustein. 1997. Influences of egg laying behavior on pathogenic infection of 

amphibian eggs. Cons. Biol. 11(1):214-220. 

Kiesecker, J.M. and A.R. Blaustein. 1995. Synergism between UV-B radiation and a pathogen magnifies 

amphibian embryo mortality in nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92: 11049-

11052.

Kiesecker, Joseph M. 1997. The effects of pathogens, UV-B radiation, and introduced species on amphibians 

in the Pacific Northwest. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. 194 p.

Knight, R. L., and S. K. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 48(3):999-1004.

Knight, R. L., V. Marr, and S. K. Knight. 1983. Communal roosting of bald eagles in Washington. in: R. G. 

Anthony; F. B. Isaacs, and R. W. Frenzel, editors. Proceedings of a workshop on habitat management 

for nesting and roosting bald eagles in the western United States. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife 

Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Knight, S. K., and R. L. Knight. 1986. Vigilance patterns of bald eagles feeding in groups. Auk 103:263-272.

Krebs, C. J. 1972. Ecology. Harper & Row, New York.

Lawerence, W.H. 1954. Michigan beaver population as influenced by fire and logging. PhD. Diss., Univ. 

Mich., Ann Arbor, MI. 219 pp.

Leege, T.A. 1968. Natural movements of beavers in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32: 

973-976. 
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 6

Leonard, W. P., H.A. Brown, L. L. C. Jones, K. R. McAllister, and R. M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of

Washington and Oregon. Published by the Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Lestelle, L.C., L.E. Mobrand, J.A. Lichatowich, and T.S. Vogel. 1996. Applied ecosystem analysis - a primer, 

EDT: the ecosystem diagnosis and treatment method. Project number 9404600. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Lichatowich, J. and S. Cramer. 1979. Parameter selection and sample sizes in studies of anadromous 

salmonids. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

MacNally, R. C. 1995. Ecological versatility and community ecology. Cambridge University Press, New 

York, New York, USA.

Marcot, B. G., and M. Vander Heyden. 2001. Key ecological functions of wildlife species. Pp. 501-511 in: D. 

Johnson and T. O'Neil, Manag. Dirs. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. 

Marcot, B. G., M. A. Castellano, J. A. Christy, L. K. Croft, J. F. Lehmkuhl, R. H. Naney, K. Nelson, C. G. Niwa, 

R. E. Rosentreter, R. E. Sandquist, B. C. Wales, and E. Zieroth. 1997. Terrestrial ecology assessment. 

Pp. 1497-1713 in: T. M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide, ed. An assessment of ecosystem components in 

the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Volume III. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 

Marcot, B. G., R. S. Holthausen, M. G. Raphael, M. M. Rowland, and M. J. Wisdom. 2001. Using Bayesian 

belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management 

alternatives from an environmental impact statement. Forest Ecology and Management 153(1-3):29-

42.

Marcot, Bruce, G. and M. Vander Heyden. 2000. Key ecological functions of wildlife species. In D.H. Johnson 

and T.A. O’Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon 

State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 

McConnaha, W. E. 1999. The Columbia River Multi-species Framework: principles and progress. in R. 

Sakrison and P. Sturtevant, editors. Proceedings of AWRA's Annual Water Resources Conference -

Watershed management to protect declining species. American Water Resoureces Association, 

Middleburg, Virginia.

McLaughlin, C.R., G.J. Matula, and J.H. Hunt. 1986. A draft habitat suitability index model for black bears in 

the conifer-deciduous forests of New England: its application in Maine. Eastern Black Bear 

Workshop on Research and Management. 8:137-164.

Middleton, D. 1997. The Black Bear Den. Internet site - http://www.nature-net.com/bears/black.html.

Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. 1999. Analysis of factors affecting aquatic resources of the Deschutes watershed: 

with application to relicensing of the Pelton-Round Butte Project. Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., Vashon, 

Washington.

Mobrand, Lars E.; Lichatowich, James A.; Lestelle, Lawrence C., and Vogel, Thomas S. An approach to 

describing ecosystem performance "through the eyes of salmon". Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. 1997; 54, 2964-2973. 

Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-habitat relationships: concepts and 

applications. Second edition. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison WI. 435 pp. 
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 7

Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelly. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by beaver. 

Bioscience 38:753-762.

NMFS/Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 2000a. Passage of juvenile and adult salmonids past Columbia 

and Snake River dams. White Paper. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

NMFS/Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 2000b. Summary of research related to transportation of juvenile 

anadromous salmonids around Snake and Columbia River dams. White Paper. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1994. 1994 Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife program. Northwest 

Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1997. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program - Fiscal year 

1998 - Annual implementation work plan. Document 97-14. Northwest Power Planning Council, 

Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1999. Fish and Wildlife Program Scientific Foundation. NPPC website: 

http://www.nwframework.org/ecol_woprk.html.

O'Neil, T. A., K. A. Bettinger, M. Vander Heyden, B. G. Marcot, C. Barrett, T. K. Mellen, W. M. Vander 

Haegen, D. H. Johnson, P. J. Doran, L. Wunder, and K. M. Boula. 2001. Structural conditions and 

habitat elements of Oregon and Washington. Pp. 115-139 in: D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, ed. 

Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis 

OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Status 

Report: Columbia River fish runs and fisheries, 1938-1997. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Clackamas, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. Oregon Species Information System. User Manual

developed by W. McKenzie, S. Olson-Edge, and T. O'Neil. Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 

Palik, B. J., P. C. Goebel, L. K. Kirkman and L. West. 2000. Using landscape hierarchies to guide restoration of 

disturbed ecosystems. Ecological Applications: 10: 189-202.

Park, D.L. 1993. Effects of marine mammals on Columbia River salmon under the Endangered Species Act 

Recovery Measures for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon: Technical Report 3 of 11. 

Under contract DE-AM79-93BP99654, Bonneville Power Administration. Don Chapman Consultants, 

Inc., for S.P. Cramer and Associates, Portland, Oregon.

Peters, Calvin N., David R. Marmorek, and Ian Parnell., editors. 1999. PATH decision analysis report for 

Snake River fall chinook. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC.

Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: Bald Eagle (breeding season). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Biol. Rep. 82 (10.126). Washington, DC. 

Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream riparian, and biotic 

conditions. General technical report INT-138. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, UT.

Powell, R.A., J.W. Zimmerman, and D.E. Seaman. 1997. Ecology and Behaviour of North American Black 

Bears: Home ranges, habitat and social organization. Chapman and Hall. London. 203 pp. 

Power, M. E., A. Sun, G. Parker, W. E. Dietrich, and J. T. Wooten, 1995. Hydraulic Food-Chain Models. 

Bioscience 45: 159-167.
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 8

Puchy, C., and D. Marshall. 1993. Oregon Wildlife Diversity Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Portland, Oregon, USA. 

Quigley, T. M., R. W. Haynes, R. T. Graham, and T. Russel. 1996. An integrated scientific assessment for 

ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. 

PNW-GTR-382, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 303 pp.

Raphael, M. G., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, B. G. Marcot, and T. D. Rich. 

2001. Status and trends of habitats of terrestrial vertebrates in relation to land management in the 

interior Columbia River Basin. Forest Ecology and Management 153(1-3):63-87.

RASP (Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project). 1992. Supplementation in the Columbia Basin. 

Project Number 85-62. summary report series - Final Report. Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon.

Rastetter, E. B., L. Gough, A. E. Hartley, D. A. Herbert, K. J. Nadelhoffer, and M. Williams. 1999. A revised 

assessment of species redundancy and ecosystem reliability. Conservation Biology 13:440-443. 

Reimers, P.E. 1971. The length of residence of juvenile fall chinook salmon in Sixes River, Oregon. Thesis. 

Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Reynolds, D.G., and J.J. Beecham. 1980. Home range activities and reproduction of black bears in west-central 

Idaho. Conf. on Bear Research Manage. 3:181-190.

Roby, D.D., D.P. Craig, K. Collis, and S.L. Adamany. 1998. Avian predation on juvenile salmonids in the 

Columbia River basin. Annual Report prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 

97BI33475, Portland, OR.

Rogers, L.L. 1977. Social relationships, movements, and population dynamics of black bears in northeastern 

Minnesota. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Minn., Minneapolis. 

Rogers, L.L., and A.W. Allen. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: black bear, upper Great Lakes Region. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biology Report 82 (10.144). 54 pp.

Rose, K. A. 2000. Why are quantitative relationships between environmental quality and fish populations so 

elusive? Ecological Applications 10: 367-385.

Schlapfer, F. and B. Schmid. 1999. Ecosystem effects of biodiversity: a classification of hypotheses and 

exploration of empirical results. Ecological Applications 9:893-912.

Schlosser,I. J. and L. W. Kallemeyn. 2000. Spatial variation in fish assemblages across a beaver-influenced 

successional landscape. Ecology. 81: 1371-1382.

Schumaker, N.H. 1998. A users guide to the PATCH model. EPA/600/R-98/135. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

Smith, M. R., P. W. Mattocks Jr., and K. M. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of Washington State: location data 

and predicted distributions. Volume 4 in: K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. Smith, and K. M. Dvornich, 

editors. Washington State Gap Analysis, Final Report. Seattle Audubon Society Publications in

Zoology No. 1, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Spence, B. C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, nd R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid 

conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR.

Stalmaster, M. V. and J. A. Gessman. 1984. Ecological energetics and foraging behavior of overwintering bald 

eagles. Ecol. Monogr. 54(4):407-428.
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 9

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987 . The Bald Eagle. New York, New York: Universe Books.

Stalmaster, M.V. 1994. Status and ecology of wintering bald eagles on the Fort Lewis Reservation, 

Washington, third year study. Fort Lewis, Washington: Department of the Army Document Number 

9000-030-400B.

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 42:506-513.

Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of wintering bald eagles. FWS/OBS-78/79. Eastern Energy and Land Use 

Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Kearneysville,WV.

Stehman, 1992. Comparison of systematic and random sampling of estimating the accuracy of maps 

generated fro remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. V-58, 9. pp. 

1343-1350.

Steinetz (missing reference?)

Storm, R. M., and W. P. Leonard. 1995. Reptiles of Oregon and Washington. Seattle Audubon Society, 

Seattle, Washington, USA.

Taylor, E. B. 1990. Environmental correlates of life-history variation in juvenile chinook salmon, 

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum). Journal of Fish Biology 37: 1-17.

Taylor, E. B. 1990. Phenotypic correlates of life-history variation in juvenile chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha. Journal of Animal Ecology 59: 455-468.

Teunissen van Manen, F. 1991. A feasibility study for the potential reintroduction of black bears into the Big 

South Fork area of Kentucky and Tennessee, Tech. Rep. 91-3. Tenn. Wildlife Resource Agency, 

Nashville, TN. 158pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). ESM 101, 102, and 103. Division 

of Ecological Services, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Historic Vegetation Map. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

Project, Spatial Data, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Portland, OR. 

Available on-line at: http://www.icbemp.gov/spatial/veg/veg.shtml

van Zyll de Jong, C. 1984. Taxonomic relationships of Nearctic small-footed bats of the Myotis leibii group

(Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 2519-2526.

Vander Heyden, Madeleine 1997. Female black bear habitat selection and home range ecology in the central 

Cascades of Oregon. M.S. Thesis Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 135 pp.

Verts, B. J. and Leslie N. Carraway 1998. Land mammals of Oregon University of California Press Berkeley 

and Los Angeles, California 668 pp.

Walker, B. H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology 6:18-23.

Walters, C. 1993. Where have all the coho gone? Pages 1-8 in L. Berg and P. W. Delaney, editors. Proceedings 

of the coho workshop. British Columbia Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, British 

Columbia.

Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation 

Ecology [online]1(2):1; Available from the Internet. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1. 
References

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 / 10

Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder. 1993. Mammal species of the world, 2

nd edition. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, D. C., USA.

Zabel, R. W. and J. J. Anderson. 1997. A model of the travel time of migrating juvenile salmon, with an

application to Snake River spring chinook salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

17(1): 93-100.
Glossary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 /Page 1

GLOSSARY

6-HUC: HUCs (hydrologic unit codes) are a standard hydrological classification system. There are some 

7,500 HUC-6s within the U.S. portion of the Columbia River basin.

actual flows: Flows as modified by upstream regulation and diversion.

adiabatic mixing: A meteorological event sometimes called Chinook winds. This occurs when a cold front is

warmed due to changes in air pressure. 

Alternative 2: A combination of strategies that include breeching five hydroelectric projects, improved

hatcheries, and equal emphasis on improving tributary habitat on public and private land. Alternative 2

places equal effort in improving habitat on private and public lands.

Alternative 5: A combination of strategies that do not include breeching but propose increasing spring and

summer mainstem flows, improving hatcheries, and emphasis on improving tributary habitat on public

lands. Alternative 5 emphasizes habitat actions on public lands over private lands.

Alternative 6: A combination of strategies that do not include breeching but propose increasing juvenile

transportation, reducing spring flows, increasing summer flows, improving hatcheries and emphasis on

improving tributary habitat on public lands. Alternative 6 requires the same amount of effort as Alternative 5 

does for public lands but significantly less on public lands.

Bayesian belief network (BBN): A model that depicts the probability of events or conditions based on causal 

relations such as between habitats and species; uses a form of Bayesian statistics.

Beverton-Holt model: A generally accepted stock-recruitment model that can be used to determine harvest

and stock size for semelparous species such as Pacific salmon.

Beverton-Holt formulation: see Beverton-Holt functions

Beverton-Holt functions: The mathematical formulas that describe the relationships between fish survival,

productivity, fecundity and abundance.

biodiversity: the variety of life and its processes; includes components of structure, function, and process of 

species, communities, ecosystems, and other levels of biological organization

biodiversity, productivity, and resource-use sustainability (BPS): three potential goals for managing for

ecological integrity under ecosystem management.

Biological Objectives: Target levels set by the Framework process for: numbers of individuals (fish or

wildlife population sizes), amount of habitat types and attributes, and functional attributes.

biological performance: The ability of a watershed to support and sustain life as measured by productivity, 

capacity and life history diversity of diagnostic species.

biological performance response: The predicted change in biological performance as the result of

implementing a particular alternative for environmental management. 

Bio-Rules: Translate knowledge about the environment into knowledge, or operating hypotheses, about

species response. They describe the suitability of the environment for species performance. BioRules address 

two aspects of performance: productivity and capacity.
Glossary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 /Page 2

carcass stage: The final stage of a salmon life when the animal dies. 

Closely Associated: Wildlife habitat types or structural conditions that play an essential need in supporting a 

wildlife species in its overall maintenance and viability; as used in the SHP database.

community: The array of species, and their ecological interactions, existing in a particular environment and

geographic area.

community richness: An EDT Level 2 ecological attribute referring to the number of species in a particular

area.

confidence rating: An evaluation of the overall strength of scientific evidence that describes wildlife habitat

relationships.

CRiSP Model 4: The Columbia River Salmon Passage model used for the Columbia River mainstem. It

calculates fish survival and movement through the hydroelectric system. EDT used some of the data sets

developed for this model.

current condition: see Current Potential

Current Potential: The likely array of aquatic and terrestrial environmental conditions over the most recent

decade, as depicted at a relatively coarse level of geographic resolution.

Ecological Work Group: A group within the Framework process responsible for scientific analysis of the

policy alternatives

Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU): A combination of Distinct Population Segments that are collectively

protected by the Endangered Species Act. 

ecosystem: The set of species and biological communities, including all biotic and abiotic factors and their

interactions, existing in a particular environment and geographic area.

EDT approach: A science-based approach to formalizing and analyzing actions to improve the sustainability 

and production of migratory salmon. The approach integrates the quality and quantity of habitat across the

salmon life cycle. It estimates the ability of the environment to support a population in terms of abundance,

productivity, and life history diversity. 

effectiveness: The extent that an attribute might be expected to change under a strategy.

effectiveness monitoring: Determining the degree to which the biological system responds to management

activities as expected.

embeddedness: Degree to which large particles (boulders, rubble, gravel) are surrounded or covered by fine 

sediment, usually measured in classes according to percent coverage.

environmental attributes: Conditions in the environment that are used by EDT to evaluate the quality of

habitat. They can be abiotic (water temperature) or biotic (i.e., community diversity). 

Fall redistribution: An early-fall movement of yearling salmon into new territory in the freshwater

environment.

Framework strategies: Strategies are actions that might be implemented to manage a watershed; strategy

blocks are suites of actions that comprise an alternative.

freshwater rearing stage: The salmon life history stage following fry colonization. Fish are largely stationary 

and activities are mainly focused on feeding and growth. 
Glossary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 /Page 3

functional analysis: The name given to our evaluation of the ecological roles of fish and wildlife.

functional attributes: Categories of key ecological functions.

functional richness: The number of categories of key ecological functions present in a particular biological

community.

functional web: The array of key ecological functions and the various species performed by them, in a

community, along with ecological links among species and between species and their habitats.

Future Potential: Conditions in the basin assuming alternative management strategies have been

implemented. These strategies predict changes in attributes that have the potential to improve salmon

performance over the next 100 years.

Generally Associated: Habitat types or structural conditions that play a supportive role for a species overall 

maintenance and viability; as used in the SHP database.

habitat attributes: See key environmental correlates (KECs); term used in the SHP wildlife database; refers to 

specific substrates and other aspects of a species' environment at spatial scales of resolution finer than those

of habitat types and vegetation structural conditions.

habitat capacity: Habitat quality times habitat area, similar to the Habitat Unit in the Habitat Evaluation

Procedure.

Habitat Condition Index (HCI): The Framework term used for habitat capacity in the wildlife analyses.

historic condition: See Historic Potential.

Historic Potential: Conditions in the basin that likely existed about 150 years ago (prior to non-native human 

influences). 

HUC: Hydrologic unit code; refers to a strictly hierarchical mapping of water containment units conducted

by US Geological Survey. Levels in the hierarchy are denoted by numbers, including the following: 4-HUC = 

subbasin, 5-HUC = watershed; 6-HUC = subwatershed.

h-VSP analysis: A viable salmon population model that includes habitat conditions. This model, once used

by the National Marine Fisheries Service, has been superceded by more recent habitat-based salmon

population models.

ICBEMP: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project; of USDI Bureau of Land Management

and USDA Forest Service.

incubation stage: The period of the salmon life cycle from egg fertilization until hatching.

intensity: Framework intensity scores indicate the extent of implementation for management strategies;

intensity scores modify effectiveness ratings by specifying full or reduced effectiveness.

interstitial space: The space between the material (e.g., sand, gravel, cobbles) that comprise the spawning

substrate in streams.

juvenile migration timing: The time during the salmon life cycle when juvenile fish either redistribute into 

fresh water or start their movement to the ocean.

key ecological functions (KEF): The major ecological roles played by a species in its ecosystem.
Glossary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 /Page 4

key environmental correlate (KEC): An aspect of a species' environment finer in scale than major vegetation 

or habitat type; includes specific habitat substrates and also non-habitat aspects of a species' environment,

such as noise, effects of other species, etc.

Life History Diversity: the multitude of life history pathways (temporally and spatially connected sequences 

life history segments) available for the species to complete its life cycle.

life history pattern: a collection of similar trajectories, as applied in the EDT analytical model.

management activities: In the SHP wildlife database, refers to a set of general categories of management

actions that might influence habitats for wildlife; extended to fish in this report.

Manning's equation: A formulation used by hydrologists to assess sheer forces in rivers. This report used

this equation to determine the wetted channel width.

Moderate worldview: An intermediate world view that reflects likely outcomes when only a portion of the

assumptions in the Technical Optimistic and Technical Pessimistic world views actually occur.

Multi-Species Framework: A process conceived by the Northwest Power Planning Council to analyze

strategic choices associated with fish and wildlife recovery in the Columbia Basin.

natural stream flow: Flow without consideration of any upstream diversion or regulation. 

nutrient load: A Level 1 Environmental Attribute used by EDT. Denotes the monthly concentration of

nutrients such as nitrate and phosphorous. 

ocean type: The portion of a salmon population that moves to the ocean in their first year of life.

original source: The reference or study that is the source of empirical data.

PATH: Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses. The PATH members use a variety of modeling tools to

address questions related to salmon recovery in the Columbia Basin.

population carrying capacity: The theoretical maximum size of a population that can be sustained by

specific environmental conditions and resources present in a particular area.

population productivity: A term used by fish biologists to express the growth rate of a population. This term 

does not address density dependence. 

population: The set of interbreeding organisms of a particular species existing in a particular area.

potential future performance: see Future Potential

Present: The habitat types or structural conditions provides marginal support to a species overall

maintenance and viability; as used in the SHP database.

productivity: see Population Productivity. 

redd construction: The process of making a spawning nest in the gravel bed of a river by salmon or

steelhead.

Resident fish: Fish that spend their entire life cycle in freshwater. For program purposes, resident fish

include landlocked anadromous fish (e.g., white sturgeon, kokanee and coho), as well as traditionally defined 

resident fish species.

Ricker model: A density-dependent population model developed by fisheries biologist W.E. Ricker to

describe the relationship between recruits and spawners or total offspring for various population sizes. 
Glossary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 /Page 5

Ricker recruitment curves: Graphical representations of the results/outputs (e.g., recruitment function) from 

a Ricker model. 

runoff: Defines the amount of flow generated from each 6-HUC unit into the stream network; runoff was

estimated from the Distributed Hydrologic Soils Vegetation Model (DHSVM).

saltwater rearing stage: The portion of a salmon life cycle when they live in the ocean. 

sediment load: A Level 1 environmental attribute considered in the EDT modeling process. It refers to the

mean monthly concentration of fine sediments in the water.

sinuosity: The amount of bending, winding and curving in a stream or river.

sinuosity index: A category used to describe the degree a stream bends, winds or curves. 

spawning stage: The portion of a salmon life cycle when fish release and fertilize eggs

species assemblage: The set of species occurring in a particular area without regard to their ecological

interactions (see Community).

Species Habitat Project (SHP) database: A database on wildlife in Oregon and Washington, from the

Species-Habitat Project (Johnson and O'Neil 2001).

Spring dispersal: Refers to the initial movement of fry during the spring months. 

Spring-Fall dispersal: Refers to the combined movement in the spring and subsequent redistribution

movements of salmon that remain in fresh water for one year. 

stream type: The portion of a salmon population that remains in fresh water for a year. 

survival landscape: A conceptual term used by EDT modelers to convey the idea that salmon survival and

abundance is influenced by a mix of environmental attributes that varies depending on where the fish occurs 

in the basin. This report considers each 6-HUC to be a survival landscape.

sustainability: The ability to maintain diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, health, renewability,

and/or yields of desired values, resources, uses, products, or services from an ecosystem while also

maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem over time.

Technology Optimistic worldview: Assumes that strategies for fish recovery that emphasize technology will 

be successful.

Technology Pessimistic worldview: Assumes that strategies for fish recovery that do not emphasize

technology will be successful.

The All-Hs: Habitat, Hydro, Harvest and Hatcheries.

total functional diversity: The full array of all categories of key ecological functions (KEFs) of wildlife

species in a particular area or community, along with the relative redundancy (number of species) of each

KEF category.

trajectories: Multiple pathways generated by a Trajectory Generator module, in the EDT analytical model.

Trajectory Generator module: Component of EDT software that creates a life history pathway (i.e., trajectory) 

that a single fish will follow. Many trajectories are generated for each EDT analysis. 

translation examples: Formulas and functions used by the Ecological Work Group to convert Level 2

ecological attributes to Level 3 biological performance. 
Glossary

A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin Feb 2002 /Page 6

validation monitoring: Monitoring studies that seek to test the major underlying assumptions about how a

biological system operates.

water temperatures: Level 2 ecological attributes used in the EDT modeling process. The temperature of

water is evaluated as a daily maximum, a daily minimum and as surface water is influenced by inputs of

ground water.

water velocity: A measure of how fast water flows. Natural flow is an EDT Level 1 environmental attribute.

wildlife habitat relationships (WHR): General term referring to species-specific depictions of habitats and

environmental features that influence the distribution and abundance of wildlife species.

wildlife population performance: Measured by the Habitat Condition Index that addresses habitat capacity.

worldview: A concept describing how a biological system operates that used in this report to assess

uncertainty of the fish results for each of the three alternatives analyzed. 
The EDT Method

August 1999 - Draft

Mobrand Biometrics, Inc.
The EDT Method August 1999

Table of Contents

The EDT Method..............................................................................1

Conceptual Framework................................................................1

Framework Principles.............................................................1

Framework Function..............................................................3

Environmental Attributes.......................................................5

Biological Performance..........................................................5

Life History Diversity.......................................................8

Productivity......................................................................9

Capacity.........................................................................10

Analytical Model.......................................................................12

Biological Rating of Environmental Attributes......................14

Trajectory Generation and Sampling.....................................15

Benchmarks.........................................................................16

Step-by-Step Procedure..............................................................17

Identification of Goals and Values........................................17

Diagnosis.............................................................................17

System organization, definition, and scale.......................18

Information compilation.................................................19

Data translation..............................................................19

Life history analysis........................................................19

Identification of Alternatives................................................19

Analysis of Treatment Alternatives.......................................20

Adaptive Implementation of Preferred Alternatives...............20

Literature Cited..........................................................................21

Appendix A...............................................................................25

Appendix B...............................................................................31
The EDT Method August 1999

The EDT Method

The EDT method was designed to provide a practical, science-based 

approach for developing and implementing watershed plans. The 

method provides decision makers with the technical information 

needed to develop plans that will achieve their goals. 

The EDT method consists of three components: 

• Conceptual Framework—a way of organizing information to 

describe a watershed ecosystem in order to apply scientific 

principles to the understanding of that ecosystem

• Analytical Model—a tool used to analyze environmental 

information and draw conclusions about the ecosystem

• Step-by-Step Procedure—a procedure that explains how to apply 

the conceptual framework and analytical model to develop plans 

that achieve goals.

Conceptual Framework 

We begin our discussion of the conceptual framework by introducing 

the principles that form the foundation for the framework and then 

describing its function. Then we take a close look at the central 

components of the framework—environmental attributes and 

biological performance.

Framework Principles

There is an emerging theme in the literature that calls for fish and 

wildlife management that is both rationaland consistent with an

ecosystem approach (Nehlsen et al. 1991; Lee 1993; Lichatowich et al. 

1995; Williams et al. 1997).

By rational management, we mean a science-based approach to 

management based on a system of logic (rationale) that explains how 

intended actions will be transferred into desired outcomes. 
Page 2

Ecosystem (or watershed) approach refers to the growing realization 

that management actions should be made in a holistic context that 

considers interrelationships within the watershed (Simenstad et al. 

1992; Doppelt et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1997). Without a holistic, 

watershed context, it is difficult to prioritize actions and assess their 

possible combined or cumulative effect. An ecosystem approach is 

needed to address resource issues from a broader viewpoint than can 

occur with a management focus on just one or a few species (Haskell 

et al. 1992; Lichatowich et al. 1995). An ecosystem approach to 

management promotes coordinated efforts, taking into consideration 

biological diversity and integrity leading to a balance of sustainable 

benefits to society (Angermeier 1997).

The inherent complexity of ecosystems, however, makes it difficult to 

describe and evaluate them. One way deal with this complexity is to 

look at the ecosystem through the eyes of one or more diagnostic 

species (Mobrand et al. 1997). A diagnostic species that is properly 

chosen helps us make inferences about the ability of a watershed to 

sustain a broad range of natural and social values. See Appendix B for 

a discussion on the concept of the diagnostic species. 

The conceptual framework for the EDT method was developed with an 

aim toward utility for salmon management but also with the important 

goal of maintaining consistency with an ecosystem approach. The 

framework accomplishes this by viewing salmon as the indicator, or 

diagnostic, species for the ecosystem. The salmon’s perspective—its 

perception of the environment—becomes a filtered view of the system 

as a whole. Within the limitations of the salmon’s perspective and our 

ability to interpret it, this approach provides a framework for 

formulating strategies for salmon in the context of watershed 

management. 

Although the framework was designed to have sufficient dimensional 

complexity to accommodate temporal, spatial and biological detail, it 

is simple in concept. Conceptual simplicity is important because unless 

ideas can be communicated clearly and without ambiguity, nothing is 

gained. 

The usefulness of this type of framework should be measured by how 

well it generates insights into ecological patterns and relationships that 

might otherwise be missed or glossed over (Bunnell 1989; Lee 1993). 

As a theoretical construct, it is a caricature of nature against which to 

test and expand human experience (Walter 1986).

The foundation for the conceptual framework is well described by the 

following principles endorsed by the Multi-species Ecological Work 

Group (1999): 
Page 3

1) The abundance and productivity of fish and wildlife reflect the 

conditions they experience in their ecosystems over the course of 

their lifecycle.

2) Natural ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary and resilient. 

3) Ecosystems are structured hierarchically.

4) Ecosystems are defined relative to specific communities of plant 

and animal species.

5) Biological diversity accommodates environmental variation.

6) Ecosystem conditions develop primarily through natural 

processes. 

7) Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

8) Human actions can be key factors structuring ecosystems.

Framework Function

Watersheds and ecosystems are by nature hierarchical (O’Neill et al. 

1986). Concepts and terms must be consistent at all levels in the 

hierarchy. Therefore, the EDT framework was designed so that 

analyses made at different scales—from tributary watersheds to 

successively larger watersheds—might be related and linked. 

Ultimately, conditions within these watersheds can be linked to those 

within the Ocean.

This function of the conceptual framework enables us to consider 

conditions for sustainability that link all components of an extensive 

and complex life history, such as that exhibited by salmon, over 

successively larger spatial scales. It is the key to our ability to assess 

the cumulative effects of concurrent actions spread across the 

geographic range of salmon.

In its simplest form, the conceptual framework is a pathway for linking 

potential land use actions (or natural events) to outcomes that may be 

relevant to values such as harvest opportunity (Figure 1). It provides a 

rationale for how actions and events are transferred into resource 

outcomes.
Page 4 

Actions

and Events

Environmental

Attributes

Biological

Performance

Stakeholder

Values

and Objectives

Figure 1. The EDT framework.

The framework consists of a sequence of relationships. The flow of 

logic proceeds as follows. 

• Land use actions (or a natural event) within the ecosystem have 

some effect on attributes, or conditions, of the environment. These 

attributes may be abiotic (such as sediment loading or water 

temperature) or biotic (such as increases in abundance of a 

particular species by hatchery outplanting).

• These changes in environmental attributes, in turn, affect how 

populations within the ecosystem perform (i.e., survive and 

function).

• The resulting performance of populations creates an outcome that 

has direct relevance to objectives such as those associated with 

harvest and endangered species recovery.

The flow of information through these relationships is bi-directional—

the process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing actions is a 

cycle that proceeds from goals to actions repeatedly. The implications 

of events and land use actions flow in the opposite direction as well. 

The purpose of this type of logical construct is to promote a better 

understanding of these relationships. Too often actions are presumed 

to translate more or less directly to objectives without a clear rationale 

of how their effects flow through the ecosystem. This framework 

requires explicit consideration of possible pathways. The framework 

explains possible consequences in a manner consistent with existing 

knowledge and information, and it requires that all assumptions 

necessary to watershed planning are identified—thus it becomes a 

vehicle for learning and communicating.

At the core of the framework are relationships between environmental 

attributes and biological performance. The term biological 

performance refers to the way in which a population manifests itself in 

space and time under a given set of environmental conditions. There is 

a wide array of possible performances (Warren et al. 1979) for species 

like salmon over the range of conditions that have existed in the 

Pacific Northwest. The EDT model interprets these relationships from 
Page 5 

the perspective of the diagnostic species. An understanding of the 

diagnostic species concept is important to the discussion of the core 

elements of the conceptual framework—environmental attributes and 

biological performance. See Appendix B for a detailed discussion of 

diagnostic species.

Environmental Attributes

In the conceptual framework, environmental attributes are the link 

between actions and biological performance. The environmental 

attributes defined and used in the EDT method are those that 

traditionally appear in the literature to describe the relationship 

between biological performance and the environment (see Table 1).

Environmental attributes vary over time and space. For the purpose of 

describing the biological performance of the diagnostic species, we 

must select appropriate time and space scales. This selection is made 

difficult by that fact that people typically view the world at different 

space and time scales (Walters 1997).

Harvest managers are concerned with short-term (e.g. annual) 

variations in abundance and distribution of fish, often on a relatively 

coarse spatial scale like a watershed. Habitat managers tend to focus 

on a smaller spatial scale (e.g. stream reach) and longer time frames 

such as multiple salmon generations. 

If we hope to link these different perspectives, we must develop a 

“telescoping” approach. We must be able to zoom in on details (in 

terms of space, time and life history stage) and pan out to a broader 

perspective in a consistent way. To accomplish this, the conceptual 

framework incorporates a hierarchic structure where actions, 

attributes, performance, and goals can be defined on a variable scale. 

Biological Performance

Biological performance is a central feature of the framework. It is 

defined in terms of three elements—life history diversity, productivity, 

and capacity1 as shown in Figure 2. These elements of performance are 

characteristics of the ecosystem that describe persistence, abundance, 

and distribution potential of a population.

 

1

 We use the terms productivity and capacity as defined by Hilborn and Walters 

(1992) Capacity is the maximum population size for one or more life history 

segments Capacity and productivity are not independent 
Page 6

Table 1. Habitat attributes rated for all life stages, reaches and months.

Attribute

Abbreviation 

in model Definition

Channel stability Chan Stability of the reach with respect to its streambed, banks, and 

its channel shape and location.

Chemicals Chem Concentrations of toxic substances or the presence of toxic 

conditions. Substances include chemicals and heavy metals. 

Toxic conditions include low pH.

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Comp The relative abundance of hatchery produced animals of the 

same species as the diagnostic species that compete with the 

diagnostic species for food or space within the stream reach.

Competition (with

other species)

Compo The relative abundance of other species in the stream reach 

that compete with the diagnostic species for food or space.

Flow Flow Amount of stream flow and the pattern and extent of flow 

fluctuations within the stream reach.

Food Food Amount, diversity, and availability of food that can support 

the diagnostic species. 

Habitat diversity Hab The extent of habitat complexity within a stream reach.

Harvest Harv Harvest of the diagnostic species by humans. Here, this 

applies only to poaching.

KeyHabitat KeyHa The primary habitat type used during a life stage.

Nutrient load Nutr The concentration of dissolved nutrients due to natural or 

man-induced causes.

Obstructions Obst Physical structures that impede movement of the diagnostic 

species within a stream reach, such as dams, waterfalls, or 

other structures.

Oxygen Oxy Mean concentration of dissolved oxygen in the stream reach's 

key habitat used by the diagnostic species.

Pathogens Path The abundance, concentration, or effect of pathogens in the 

stream reach. For example, the presence of a fish hatchery or 

large numbers of livestock along the reach could cause 

unusually high concentrations of pathogens.

Predation Pred The relative abundance of predators that feed upon the 

diagnostic species.

Riparian condition Rip The state of the vegetation component of the narrow strip of 

land bordering the stream where vegetation species occur that 

are dependent on the stream or its adjacent water table.

Salinity Salin Concentration of salts within the reach (if applicable).

Sediment load Sedi The amount of sediment present in, or passing through, the 

stream reach. This only applies to fine sediment.

Temperature Temp Water temperature in the stream reach. Density-independent 

survival is affect ed by rapid fluctuations, or by prolonged 

conditions near the extremes of tolerance.

Withdrawals Wdrwl Water withdrawals from the stream reach.
Page 7

Life history

diversity

Productivity Capacity

Figure 2. Elements of biological performance.

The performance of indicator species, from a broader ecosystem 

perspective, may also reflect the potential for species diversity. This 

conceptualization of performance provides a structure for applying 

biological rules that affect the survival characteristics of populations. 

We use existing theory to link each of t hese elements to environmental 

conditions.

In population dynamics, change is determined by four processes: birth, 

death, immigration, and emigration. These processes are regulated 

through density-independent and density-dependent mechanisms. 

These mechanisms are affected differently by environmental 

conditions (Moussalli and Hilborn 1986). As we examine some of 

these differences, it is important to also remember that population 

responses are a result of interactions between the two mechanisms.

A density-independent process is one in which the rate of response is 

not affected by population density; although in the case of mortality, 

the number of deaths goes up as population size increases. In contrast, 

a density-dependent process is one in which the rate of response varies 

according to population density due to competition for limited food 

and space resources; the number of deaths also goes up as population 

size increases.

The combination of these two processes results in the total mortality 

rate of a population at any given size. The effect of density-dependent 

mortality is low at low population densities, whereas the densityindependent mortality rate is constant across all population densities. It 

is important to note that the density-independent mortality rate 

regulates the rate of loss that a population can sustain; it is the 

determinant, for example, of the rate of harvest that a population can 

sustain.

The identification of these two distinct mechanisms, densityindependent and density-dependent, is useful in explaining the way in 

which various environmental conditions affect population 
Page 8

performance. Habitat or environmental quality tends to affect densityindependent processes (Moussalli and Hilborn 1986). A deterioration 

in habitat quality will therefore tend to increase density-independent 

mortality. For example, sedimentation of a salmon spawning bed will 

tend to operate in a density-independent manner, causing an increase 

in mortality rate at all population sizes. In this case, the quality of the 

spawning bed is determined by the amount of fine sediment passing 

through, or entrained by, the substrate.

In contrast, habitat quantity tends to affect density-dependent 

processes (Moussalli and Hilborn 1986). The amount of habitat 

available becomes increasingly important as population densities 

increase (i.e., as competition for limited resources increases). In a 

parallel example to the one above, the quantity of spawning beds 

available to a salmon population could be expected to contribute to the 

mortality of eggs as spawner densities increase to the point where 

some spawners dig their nests at the same sites as slightly earlier 

spawners. In this case, superimposition of nests causes mortality to 

eggs already deposited. But at very low spawner densities, the chance 

of superimposition is very small.

These mechanisms of density independence and dependence operate 

within the three elements that comprise performance. The mechanisms 

explain how changes in the quality and quantity attributes of the 

environment affect biological performance. We next take a closer look 

at each of the three elements of that performance: life history diversity, 

productivity, and capacity.

Life History Diversity

This element represents the multitude of pathways through space and 

time available to, and used by, a species in completing its life cycle. A 

salmon life history consists of a favorable spatial-temporal distribution 

of a chain of habitats to enable its continuity (Thompson 1959). The 

life history encompasses many more or less distinct developmental life 

stages, each having its own set of environmental requirements (Bjornn 

and Reiser 1991). Species like salmon often exhibit a variety of life 

history patterns as a result of their adaptability to a heterogeneous and 

fluctuating environment. These life history patterns can be correlated 

with environmental variables on a spatial-temporal basis (Wevers 

1993; Lichatowich and Mobrand 1995).

Populations that can sustain a wide variety of life history patterns are 

likely to be more resilient to the influences of environmental change. 

Diverse life history patterns dampen the risk of extinction or reduced 

production in fluctuating environments (den Boer 1968). Not all life 

history patterns will be affected uniformly by natural or man-caused 

perturbations. Thus a loss of life history diversity is an indication of 
Page 9 

declining health of a population (Lichatowich and Mobrand 1995) and 

perhaps its environment.

The life history diversities of existing natural salmon populations can 

be described by the range of distributions and pathways that are used 

successfully by these populations. A pathway can be conceptualized as 

a trace—or trajectory—in space and time available to members of a 

population (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. The concept of a life history trajectory across the “space-time 

landscape.”

We use the term life history pattern to mean a collection of similar 

pathways. A successful life history pattern is one that is brought to 

closure—some individuals following the pattern survive through all 

life stages and return to their natal spawning ground (Sinclair 1988). A 

sustainable life history pattern is one that remains successful over the 

range of prevailing environmental and man-induced mortality 

conditions.

Productivity

This element of performance represents the density-independent 

reproductive rate (or success) of a life history pattern over an entire 

life cycle. It is probably the most critical measure of the resilience of a 

life history pattern. It determines the rate of loss that can be sustained. 

Productivity can be likened to how far a rubber band can be stretched 

before breaking.

Surprisingly little attention has been given to the subject of salmon 

productivity within the literature (Hankin and Healey 1986; Moussalli 

and Hilborn 1986). Hankin and Healey (1986) suggest that biologists 

Time

Adult

Mg aton

Freshwater

Spawning

and

Rearing

Juvenle

Mg aton

Ocean Rearing

Headwaters

G

e

o

g

r

a

p

h

i

c

R

a

n

g

e

Ocean
Page 10

have devoted a disproportionate amount of effort to estimating habitat 

carrying capacity; greater need exists, they assert, to better understand 

productivity, especially as stocks decline. 

The term is widely used in ecological and fisheries literature where its 

meaning varies greatly. Classical ecological usage usually relates to 

trophic productivity. In the fisheries literature, it sometimes refers to 

total stock size. 

The term productivity as applied in the EDT framework, follows 

precisely the recommendations of Moussalli and Hilborn (1986) and 

Hilborn and Walters (1992). It refers to density-independent survival, 

as well as to what is often called the basic biological productivity of a 

population (i.e., the average number of eggs per surviving adult).

Productivity of salmon populations consists of distinct components 

(Figure 4), each of which can have a significant effect on the overall 

value. The two major components are reproductive potential and 

density-independent survival. Reproductive potential is the total 

number of eggs per adult spawner. This term is further divided into 

two sub-components: average fecundity of females and average sex 

ratio of the spawning population. Density-independent survival is also 

divided into subcomponents: freshwater and marine.

Figure 4. Components of productivity.

An important property of productivity is that its components are 

multiplicative. From a strictly productivity-based perspective there is 

no bottleneck—no single limiting factor.

Capacity

There is clearly some upper limit to the number of organisms that an 

environment can support due to finite amounts of space, food, or other 

needed resources (Ricklefs 1973). Capacity is the element of 

performance that determines the effect of this upper limit on survival 

and distribution. It is the parameter that regulates the densitydependent population responses.

Productivity

Reproductive

Potential

Density-Independent

Survival

Fecundity Sex Ratio Freshwater Marine
Page 11

Superficially, the concept of capacity seems simple and easily 

envisioned. A room can hold only so many people; a tract of land can 

grow only so much wheat; a fish pond can be stocked with only so 

many fish. But the concept applied to an ecosystem is more elusive, 

particularly as it relates to species with complex life histories like 

salmon (Frissel et al. 1997).

There have been numerous attempts to quantify or characterize the 

capacity of natural salmon systems (Burns 1971; Marshall 1980; 

NPPC 1991; Nickelson et al. 1993; Beechie et al. 1994). Most of these 

efforts are based on a capacity concept that focuses on a single life 

stage in isolation of others, as set forth by Burns (1971):

“Carrying capacity is defined as the greatest weight of fishes 

that a stream can naturally support during the period of least 

available habitat...The stream’s carrying capacity limits the 

number and weight of salmonid smolts ultimately produced.”

Following the lead of Moussali and Hilborn, we generalize and 

broaden the notion of capacity. We are most interested in the capacity 

over the full salmon life cycle. This cumulative population maximum 

is a function of both the productivities and capacites of all component 

life history segments (Moussali and Hilborn 1986).

The model uses an expression for cumulative capacity derived from a 

Beverton-Holt multistage spawner-production relationship (Beverton 

and Holt 1957). This particular production function has both intuitive 

and mathematical appeal. It provides a logical and reasonable structure 

for framing interactions of density-independent and -dependent 

processes under various environmental conditions. Moussali and 

Hilborn (1986) postulate that other standard production functions have 

similar characteristics. 

The capacity for a population must be considered over the entire life 

cycle of the animal. To exclusively consider capacity at the close of an 

intermediate life stage ignores the effects of subsequent stages on 

population survival. While cumulative productivity is the same no 

matter where we define the beginning and end of a complete life cycle, 

cumulative capacity does depend on this choice.

A logical reference point along the timeline of life history, for defining 

the unit of capacity for salmon populations, is at reproduction. For 

salmon, spawning is the point where one generation ends and another 

begins. It is the point of minimum abundance in the life cycle and, 

therefore, represents the total amount of genetic material passed from 

one generation to the next. This point along the life cycle is also most 

representative of the values ascribed to salmon populations by society 

over the long term. It is adult salmon, and not juveniles, that relate 

most directly to societal values such as harvest.An interesting and
Page 1 2

 important conclusion that emerges from this full life-cycle perspective 

is that a population may be close to capacity (in the cumulative sense) 

without a single component life stage being fully seeded. Thus 

diagnoses indicating that habitat is under-seeded or fully seeded, 

unless analyzed from a full life-cycle perspective, can be very 

misleading. We refer the interested reader to the EDT Primer (Lest elle 

et al. 1996) for further discussion of the concept of capacity as used in 

the model.

Analytical Model

The analytical model is the tool used to analyze environmental 

information and draw conclusions about the ecosystem. The model 

computes biological performance based on environmental attributes 

(Figure 5). 

Figure 5. The analytical model in the context of the conceptual 

framework.

The model incorporates an environmental attributes database and a set 

of mathematical algorithms that compute productivity and capacity 

parameters (Figure 6). The analytical model is a scientific rather than a 

statistical model—an important distinction. 

Statistical models are based on correlations between actions and 

outcomes. They do not attempt to explain why; they simply predict the 

future based on past observations. Statistical models allow estimation 

of confidence limits and other statistical properties of the predictions. 

They are limited, however, to our range of experience.

Scientific models—such as the EDT analytical model—are, on the 

other hand, based on knowledge and assumptions about how natural 

systems work. Scientific models do attempt to explain relationships 

and therefore are more appropriate to analyze the consequences of 

broad combinations of actions that extend beyond our experience.

Actions

and Events

Environmental

Attributes

Biological

Performance

Stakeholder

Values

and Objectives

Analytical Model

Page 1 4

The EDT Method August 1999

Scientific models are not in themselves hypotheses that can be 

tested with data. They generate hypotheses that might be tested 

through observations. Validation of a scientific model means 

establishing its applicability and utility to the problem at hand. 

The standard the scientific model should achieve is whether it 

better meets this purpose than alternative models. Therefore, 

the way to challenge a scientific model is to propose a better 

one. Without a scientific model, we have no scientific basis for 

analyzing a problem.The EDT analytical model provides 

qualitative insights and understanding about how natural events 

and human actions affect biological performance. This, 

according to Hilborn and Mangal (1997), is the ideal use of 

models. The EDT analysis is based on a habitat, life history 

approach. The habitat is described in terms of survival 

conditions along the pathways (waterways) that the fish utilize 

from birth to death. By habitat, in this context, we mean all 

conditions within the environment of the fish that affect its 

behavior and survival (i.e., harvest, dams, ocean conditions). 

The EDT model computes survivorship of populations along 

the life history pathways across the habitat. The EDT model 

input consists of habitat ratings and life history pathways; the 

output is abundance, productivity, life history diversity, and 

distribution of fish populations. 

The algorithms used to calculate population parameters are 

based on the Beverton-Holt survival function (after Beverton 

and Holt 1957). In Appendix B, we derive some of the key 

relationships used in the model. 

Biological Rating of Environmental Attributes

Environmental attribute ratings are derived from observed 

environmental conditions based on information and knowledge 

from the scientific literature or from experts in the field of 

habitat and fish biology. The model captures this knowledge as 

a set of biological rules.

The most efficient way to generate environmental attribute 

ratings is to apply the rules directly to observed data. This data 

translation may also be accomplished through a manual

process, where the ratings are supplied by a panel of experts 

familiar with the watershed and with the biology of the 

diagnostic species. Biologists summarize data and reports and 

then rate habitat, by reach and month, for each of the 

attributes—relative to benchmark conditions by life stage. The 

manual data translation process has educational value for the 

participants.
Page 1 5

The EDT Method August 1999

Trajectory Generation and Sampling

Pacific salmon species are able to survive in a wide range of 

habitat types—from Alaska to California; and they are able to 

cope with dynamic variations in environmental conditions over 

time. An important component of their survival strategy is 

diversity of life history. However wide this diversity of life 

history might be, there are limitations imposed by the biology 

of the species. We refer to these limits as the genetic 

boundaries of the species. As the environment within a 

watershed varies, the range of life history diversity available to 

the species enables it to cope with these variations. 

Not all trajectories within the genetic boundaries are used with 

equal frequency. Within the genetic boundaries, the frequency 

of use is partly a function of habitat conditions and partly a 

reflection of the opportunistic nature of the species.

We do not know how quickly—or to what extent—trajectories 

adapt to the habitat, but we believe that the relationship 

between life history diversity and habitat is important to the 

survival of the species. The analytical model includes a 

mechanism for addressing our limited understanding of these 

relationships. As a starting point, we suggest a process for 

generating and subsampling trajectories that produces results 

that are consistent with what we do know.

The process consists of the following steps:

1) Define the starting point of each trajectory as the moment 

of spawning.

2) Start trajectories at uniform time and space intervals 

within assumed historic ranges for the watershed.

3) Identify a set of broad life history patterns (e.g., three 

patterns for fall chinook).

4) Identify, for each life history pattern, windows in time 

and space through which trajectories must pass (e.g., a 

time window for entering the river mouth).

5) Identify biological limits for travel speed and life stage 

durations.

6) Generate a large number of trajectories at random, subject 

to above the constraints (this creates a pool of 

trajectories).
Page 1 6

The EDT Method August 1999

7) Sub-sample the trajectory pool in proportion to those 

frequencies, to the extent that we have a priori

information about the frequency of life history patterns 

(independent of habitat conditions).

8) Include at least one trajectory originating from each reach 

in the sub-sample.

9) Use the same sample of trajectories when comparing 

different scenarios.

10) Test the sensitivity to the sample, as time and resources 

allow, by re-sampling from the pool.

Benchmarks

The EDT method associates survival with habitat. The 

productivity and capacity values derived in the EDT process 

are characteristics of the environment by time and location as 

interpreted through the eyes of salmon by species and life stage 

(Mobrand et al. 1997). It is a shaping of survival conditions 

over time and space, as salmon might experience them in 

completing their life cycle. The shaping of survival is done 

with reference to a defined set of benchmark conditions. 

From the literature, we can identify habitat requirements by life 

stage for the species. We can take it a step further and describe 

optimal conditions and the expected survival and density limits 

by life stage. When viewed at a fine enough time scale, this 

information tends to be generic (i.e., not site specific). The 

EDT process defines the reference benchmarks in terms of 

these optimal conditions. Thus benchmark descriptions of 

habitat conditions, associated productivities, and maximum 

densities by life stage are obtained from the literature 

describing conditions that are as good as it gets. 

The systematic shaping of survival conditions is intended to 

assure that productivity and capacity values for each life 

history segment along a trajectory are (a) bounded by the 

biological limits of the species; (b) scaled consistently across 

time, space, and life stage; and (c) scaled consistently with the 

benchmark values.
Page 1 7

The EDT Method August 1999

Step-by-Step Procedure

The step-by-step EDT procedure tells you how to apply the 

conceptual framework and analytical model to develop 

watershed plans that lead to achievement of goals.

The procedure consists of five steps: 

1) Identification of goals and values

2) Diagnosis

3) Identification of treatment alternatives

4) Analysis of treatment alternatives

5) Adaptive implementation of preferred alternatives

These steps were designed to provide technical support to a 

structured decision-making process. We will discuss each of 

these steps below.

Identification of Goals and Values

Watershed goals for fish resources are derived from social, 

cultural, political and legal considerations in a policy 

environment. The EDT process does not presume agreement on 

all values and goals; it only requires that potential goals and 

values be identified. 

These goals and values provide the currency whereby the 

outcomes of alternatives are described. The EDT analysis 

clarifies which goals are technically compatible and which are

in conflict. The analysis of alternatives will highlight trade-off 

options associated with each alternative.

The EDT technical analysis enables us to provide policy 

makers with sets of alternative action plans (treatments) that 

meet as many of a their stated goals as possible. When not all 

goals can be met concurrently, we can determine what the trade 

off options are.

Diagnosis 

Through diagnosis we determine why certain watershed goals 

are not being met. We accomplish this, in part, by comparing 

the three states of the watershed: the Patient, the Template, and 

the Benchmark. This type of watershed evaluation was 
Page 1 8

The EDT Method August 1999

developed by Lichatowich et al. (1995). It is called a PatientTemplate Analysis (PTA). 

The Patient refers to the current state of the watershed. The 

Patient condition is based on the best and most current 

environmental data and information available.

The Template refers to a hypothetical potential state where 

conditions are as good as they can be within the watershed. The 

Template is sometimes approximated with a reconstruction of 

historic conditions. The Template is intended to capture the 

unique characteristics and limitations of the watershed due to 

its combination of climate, geography, geomorphology, and 

history. Sedell and Luchessa (1982), Langston (1995), and 

Wissmar (1997) argue the importance of historical information 

to our understanding of the environment today and in the 

future.

The Benchmark refers to the hypothetical state where 

conditions are as good as they can be anywhere for the 

diagnostic species Benchmark values serve as a known 

reference point drawn from the literature.

The purpose of the PTA is to make statements about the 

salmon performance potential supported by an explicit set of 

assumptions and consistent with the available information 

about the watershed. The PTA describes salmon performance 

for the Patient and Template in terms of productivity, capacity, 

and life history diversity. 

The PTA highlights the differences between present and 

potential conditions within the watershed from the salmon's 

perspective. It explains those differences through a set of 

environmental attributes that describe the environment as it 

affects salmon performance. We can then use this comparison 

to formulate a diagnosis—an assessment of current conditions 

(for salmon) relative to the potential.

There are four steps in the PTA: 

1. System organization, definition, and scale. 

The watershed-population system is organized within a spatialtemporal grid consistent with the range of life histories for 

salmon. Spatially, the watershed is partitioned into stream 

reaches. Stream reach boundaries and time scales are defined 

so that within a reach-time stratum we can assume that 

environmental attributes affecting salmon survival are 

relatively constant. 
Page 1 9

The EDT Method August 1999

2. Information compilation. 

Information is assembled and summarized to describe Patient 

and Template conditions in the watershed. The purpose of this 

step is to identify the best available information and make it 

available for the data translation step that follows. This step 

basically produces a watershed analysis. Information is 

obtained from many and diverse sources such as published and 

unpublished studies, habitat surveys, environmental databases, 

environmental monitoring programs, aerial and ground level 

photographs, and maps. When a thorough watershed analysis 

has been completed before, it can be an excellent information 

source. Both historic and current conditions need to be 

captured in this compilation. 

3. Data translation.

The data and information assembled must now be translated 

into the input format required by the model. This step converts 

environmental data into ratings that specify the relative effects 

of each environmental attribute on life stage survival for the 

species. This step is done by applying a set of biological rules

that relates survival to environmental attributes. Once this step 

is completed, the baseline dataset for the Patient and Template 

is ready to be analyzed.

4. Life history analysis.

The final step in the PTA is to evaluate the Patient and 

Template habitat data from a salmon life history perspective. 

The analysis consists of three parts: 1) Definition of life history 

patterns and selection of sample trajectories; 2) Assumptions 

about population genetics, age structure, fecundity, and marine 

survival; 3) Computation and display of performance measures.

Identification of Alternatives

After the diagnosis, it is time to identify potential actions to 

achieve watershed goals. Candidate actions are tailored to 

solve problems that were identified in the diagnosis. 

Basin plans are comprehensive, long-term plans for entire 

watersheds—they consist of suites of actions designed to meet 

watershed goals. One of the main benefits of the EDT method 

is that it allows us to build diverse suites of actions and analyze 

their cumulative effects.

The analytical model contains a library of generic strategy and 

event blocks as starting points for defining watershed-specific 

actions from which alternative future basin plans can be built.
Page 2 0

The EDT Method August 1999

Analysis of Treatment Alternatives

Following the identification of candidate actions, an analysis of 

trade-offs is performed to compare benefits and risks of 

individual or suites of actions. Benefits and risks are expressed 

relative to goals and values. In the analysis of treatment 

alternatives, we want to know what the trade-offs among the 

alternatives are. One alternative may have a high likelihood of 

achieving some of the goals while other goals are at risk.

The analytical model can be used to compare multiple 

alternatives with respect to the benefits and risks to 

productivity, capacity, and life history diversity of the 

diagnostic species. 

All aspects of natural resource management involve 

uncertainty. Conceptualization of ecological relationships and 

functions, diagnostic analyses, and selection of treatments 

incorporate assumptions that create uncertainty—and 

uncertainty poses risk. 

Adaptive Implementation of Preferred Alternatives

Our understanding of ecosystems, and the responses of those 

systems to intervention, is inevitably incomplete. Our ability to 

measure progress toward management goals accurately and 

timely is limited. Adaptive management, supported by the EDT 

method, provides the means to proceed with implementation 

while managing and containing risks due to uncertainties. 

Because of uncertainty, it is necessary to incorporate in the 

implementation of watershed plans flexibility so that 

unsuccessful strategies and unattainable objectives can be 

replaced with more suitable ones. We also need, however, 

stability and accountability to ensure that sound strategic 

decisions are made that lead toward achievement of long-term 

resource goals. 
Page 2 1

The EDT Method August 1999

Literature Cited

Angermeier, P. 1997. Conceptual roles of biological integrity and diversity. Pages 49-65 

in J. E. Williams, C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck, editors. Watershed 

restoration: principles and practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland.

Beechie, T., E. Beamer, and L. Wasserman. 1994. Estimating coho salmon rearing 

habitat and smolt production losses in a large river basin, and implications for 

habitat restoration. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14: 797-

811.

Beverton, R. J. H. and S. J. Holt. 1957. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. 

Chapman & Hall, London.

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. 

Pages 83-138 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, Maryland.

Bunnell, F.L. 1989. Alchemy and uncertainty: what good are models? General 

Technical Report PNW -GTR-232. Report. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

Oregon.

Burns, J. W. 1971. The carrying capacity for juvenile salmonids in some northern 

California streams. California Fish and Game 57(1): 44-57.

den Boer, P. J. 1968. Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. 

Biotheoretical 18(19): 165-193.

Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr. 1993. Entering the watershed: a new 

approach to save America's river ecosystems . Island Press, Covelo, California.

Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, R. E. Gresswell, R. K. Nawa, and J. L. Ebersole. 1997. A 

resource in crisis: changing the measure of salmon management. Pages 411-444 

in D. J. Stouder, R. A. Bisson, and Naiman R.J., editors. Pacific salmon and their 

ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman and Hall, 

Hankin, D. and M. Healey. 1986. Dependence of exploitation rates for maximum yield 

and stock collapse on age and sex structure of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) stocks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43(9): 

1746-1759.
Page 2 2

The EDT Method August 1999

Haskell, B. D., B. G. Norton, and R. Costanza. 1992. Introduction: what is ecosystem 

health and why should we worry about it? Pages 3-20 in R. Costanza, B. G. 

Norton, and B. D. Haskell, editors. Ecosystem Health: new goals for 

environmental management. Island Press, Covelo, California.

Hilborn, R. and C. Walters. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, 

dynamics & uncertainty. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, New York.

Hilborn, R. and M. Mangel. 1997. The ecological detecttive: confronting models with 

data. Princeton Universtiy Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Langston, N. 1995. Forest dreams, forest nightmares. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle.

Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the 

environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Lestelle, L.C., L.E. Mobrand, J.A. Lichatowich, and T.S. Vogel. 1996. Applied 

ecosystem analysis - a primer, EDT: the ecosystem diagnosis and treatment 

method. Project number 9404600. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

Oregon.

Lichatowich, J.A. and L.E. Mobrand. 1995. Analysis of chinook salmon in the 

Columbia River from an ecosystem perspective. Project number 92-18; Contract 

No. DE-AM79-92BP25105. Final Report. Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon.

Lichatowich, J., L. E. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the 

diagnosis and treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in freshwater 

ecosystems. Fisheries 20(1): 10-18.

Marshall, D.E. 1980. Optimum spawning density for coho salmon. Canada Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Mobrand, L. E., J. A. Lichatowich, L. C. Lestelle, and T. S. Vogel. 1997. An approach 

to describing ecosystem performance "through the eyes of salmon". Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 2964-2973.

Moussalli, E. and R. Hilborn. 1986. Optimal stock size and harvest rate in multistage 

life history models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43(1): 

135-141.

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the 

crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. 

Fisheries 16(2): 4-21.
Page 2 3

The EDT Method August 1999

Nickelson, T. E., M. F. Solazzi, S. L. Johnson, and J. D. Rodgers. 1993. An approach to 

determining stream carrying capacity and limiting habitat for coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 251-260 in L. Berg and P. W. Delaney, editors. 

Proceedings of the coho workshop. British Columbia Department of Fisheries 

and Oceans, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1991. Proposed amendments to the Columbia River 

Basin fish and wildlife program, Phase II: Mainstem survival, harvest, production 

and other measures to protect salmon and steelhead. Document 91-25. Northwest 

Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

O'Neill, R. V., D. L. DeAngelis, J. B. Waide, and T. F. H. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical 

concept of ecosystmes. Princeton Univeristy Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Ricklefs, R. E. 1973. Ecology. Chiron Press, Newton, Massachusetts.

Sedell, J. R. and K. J. Luchessa. 1982. Using the historical record as an aid to salmonid 

habitat enhancement . in N. B. Armantrout, editor. Proceedings of the 

Symposium on Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic habitat inventory 

information. Western Division of the American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland.

Simenstad, C. A., D. A. Jay, and C. R. Sherwood. 1992. Impacts of watershed 

management on land-margin ecosystems: the Columbia River estuary. Pages 266-

306 in R. Naiman, editor. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and 

environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Sinclair, M. 1988. Marine populations: an essay on population regulation and 

speciation. Washington Sea Grant Program (Distributed by University of 

Washington Press), Seattle.

Thompson, W. F. 1959. An approach to population dynamics of the Pacific red salmon. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 88(3): 206-209.

Walter, G.F. 1986. Nisqually River drainage basin in-stream habitat assessment and 

policy recommendations. Technical Report No. 15. Nisqually Indian Tribe, 

Olympia, Washington.

Walters, C. 1997. Information requirements for salmon management. Pages 61-68 in D. 

J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon & their 

ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman & Hall , San Francisco.

Warren, C., M. Allen, and J. Haefner. 1979. Conceptual frameworks and the 

philosophical foundations of general living systems theory. Behavioral Science 

24: 296-310.
Page 2 4

The EDT Method August 1999

Wevers, M.J. 1993. Life history and evolutionary adaptation of Pacific salmon and its 

application in management. Doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, Oregon.

Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck, editors. 1997. Watershed restoration: 

principles and practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Wissmar, R. C. 1997. Historical perspectives. Pages 66-79 in J. E. Williams, C. A. 

Wood, and M. P. Dombeck, editors. Watershed restoration: principles and practices. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Page 2 5

The EDT Method August 1999

Appendix A

Analytical Approach

We use the conventional method of moment approach to 

estimate parameters. Statistical properties of these estimators 

are not discussed here; we refer the interested reader to the 

general literature on the subject. Based on preliminary 

simulations, we hypothesize that the model produces 

reasonable results for populations which follow the Ricker 

production function as well.

The Basic Survival Model

A fundamental assumption of the model is that the life history 

of a salmon species can be partitioned into segments within 

which a) habitat conditions are relatively uniform, and b) the 

survival response is constant and predictable.

Segments that meet these conditions are defined in terms of 

space (e.g. stream reach), life stage (e.g. egg incubation), and 

time (e.g. month). The model further assumes that, within each 

segment, survival is adequately described by a two-parameter, 

Beverton-Holt survival function:

C

PN

P

S

+

=

1

, (Equation 1)

where P is productivity (low density reproductive success) and 

C is carrying capacity for the “uniform” life segment. N is the 

number of individuals alive at the beginning of the segment.

The Multistage Recursion Formula 

Moussali and Hilborn (1986) showed that if survival in a 

sequence of life stage segments along the life history is either 

density independent or follows a Beverton-Holt survival 

function, then so does the full sequence. They showed further 

that “cumulative” productivity and capacity for a sequence of 

N segments with productivities pi and ci can be computed as:
Page 2 6 

The EDT Method August 1999

P p N i

i

N

=

=

∏1

, (Equation 2)

and

∑=

= N

i i

i

N

N

c

P

P

C

1

, (Equation 3)

which leads to the useful recursion:

N

N

N

N

N

c

p

C

p

C

+

=

−1

1

, (Equation 4)

If the N segments comprise the entire life cycle, we can now, 

for example, predict the equilibrium abundance, Neq, from:

( ) Neq CN PN −= 11 , (Equation 5)

We refer to a sequence of uniform life history segments that 

begins and ends with the spawning life stage as a life history 

trajectory. In the next section we talk about how productivity 

and capacity values for trajectories are used to calculate 

parameters for a population in a watershed. 

Estimating Population Productivity from Life History Trajectories.

Our objective is to find the parameters of the Beverton-Holt 

production function that best describe survival characteristics 

of a defined population within a watershed. Suppose that we 

know the productivity values, Pt ’s, for all life history 

trajectories within the genetic boundaries2 of the species. If we 

also know the relative frequency of use, Wt, of each trajectory, 

then we suggest that a reasonable estimator of the population 

productivity P is given by:

∑

∑

=

t

t

t

tt

W

PW

P . (Equation 6)

It seems reasonable that, in the long term, the frequency of use 

of the different trajectory pathways would be related to both 

 

2

 By genetic boundaries we mean the range of life history patterns, i e , spawning time, life stage 

durations, travels speeds, etc , observed for the species
Page 2 7

The EDT Method August 1999

quality and quantity of habitat available. The equilibrium 

population size, which can be calculated for each trajectory, is 

a function of both. The model in fact assumes that the weights 

(Wt) are proportional to the equilibrium population size 

(Equation 5) of each trajectory, in other words:











 ∝ = −

t

t t t P

W Neq C 1 1 , (Equation 7)

where Ct is the capacity for trajectory t. The population 

productivity parameter is thus estimated from the trajectory 

productivities and capacities by:

( )

∑

∑













−

−

=

t

t

t

t

t t

P

C

C P

P

1 1

1

. (Equation 8)

In practice, the estimate is, of course, based on a sample of 

trajectories. The question of how this sample is derived is 

discussed in a later section. The weighting procedure for 

estimating productivity reduces the sensitivity to the sampling 

scheme. We next look at the estimator for population capacity. 

Estimating Population Capacity from Life History Trajectories

The capacity, Ct, associated with a single life history trajectory 

assumes that the length of the spawning reach is one meter. For 

every meter of potential spawning habitat we can estimate the 

capacity for trajectories associated with that particular stream 

segment, m, by simply computing their average: 

( ) Cm = Average Ct∈m, (Equation 9)

and the population capacity for a watershed can be estimated as 

the sum of all Cm for all non-overlapping meter segments. If 

the distribution of potential trajectories is uniform throughout 

the watershed, then the population capacity parameter for the

watershed can be estimated as the average trajectory capacity, 

Cavg, multiplied by the length of spawning habitat in meters, M.

C =CavgM . (Equation 10)

Note that the stream width and the quantity and quality of 

habitat within the meter band are included in the trajectory 

capacity, Ct. The model estimates capacity from a sampling of 
Page 2 8

The EDT Method August 1999

trajectories. The estimate of C is sensitive to the sampling 

procedure. 

Life History Diversity from Trajectories.

Let us assume that there exists a set of life history trajectories, 

{ tÎT }, that meets the condition that they are consistent with 

the genetic limitations of the modeled species. If the 

productivity, Pt, for trajectory t is greater than one, then 

spawners that choose this trajectory will make a positive 

contribution to the next generation (i.e., more than one 

offspring will return to spawn). If, on the other hand, Pt is less 

than one, the net contribution of those spawners will be a 

population loss. We define trajectories where Pt is greater than 

one as sustainable. We define the percentage of all trajectories 

within T that are sustainable as the Life History Diversity 

Index, D.

(# )

(# : 1)

t T

t T P

D t

∈

∈ ≥

= . (Equation 11)

The computations so far have been based on the assumption 

that we can estimate the cumulative (i.e. full life cycle) 

productivity, P t, and capacity, Ct, for a life history trajectory. 

Next we describe how the model estimates these trajectory 

parameters.

Estimating Trajectory Productivity and Capacity from Habitat 

Ratings

A life history t rajectory consists of a sequence of segments, 

like beads in a chain. Each segment consists of one time, space 

and life stage stratum. Within each segment we assume that 

environmental conditions and the induced biological responses 

are constant. Each segment thus meets the conditions of the 

basic survival model described above. 

The computation of productivity and capacity for a trajectory 

requires two main steps: first, the computation of productivities 

and capacities for each segment; and second, combining the 

segment parameters into full life cycle or cumulative values. 

We will describe the second step first. 

Assume that trajectory t can be partitioned into N uniform 

segments, and let pt,i and ct,i be the productivity and capacity 

parameters for segment i of trajectory t. From Equations 2 and 

3 we have:
Page 2 9 

The EDT Method August 1999

∏=

=

N

i

t it P p

1

,

, (Equation 12)

and

∑=

= N

i i

it

t

t

c

P

P

C

1

,

, (Equation 13)

where

∑=

=

i

j

it jt P p

1

, ,

 (Equation 14)

Now the question remains: how do we estimate the segment p’s 

and c’s? We are now looking at a uniform stream reach, over a 

time period when no significant change in habitat conditions 

occurs, and we are considering one fixed life stage. The 

productivity parameter for the segment is the low-density 

survival over the duration of the segment. We assume that this 

density independent survival parameter is strictly a function of 

the quality of habitat perceived by the given species and life 

stage. Specifically, the productivity is given by:

iitit

p r b = ,,, (Equation 15)

where ib is a “benchmark” (reference) productivity value for 

the life stage obtained from the literature adjusted for the 

duration of the current trajectory segment3. The benchmark 

values represent optimal survival conditions for the species. 

The factor itr,is a relative productivity multiplier that adjusts 

the benchmark value to the habitat quality conditions of 

segment t,i. This multiplier is computed from:

2.7

, ∏(1−= / 4)

a

r it ha, (Equation 16)

where 

a

h is a rating for habitat quality attribute a. The model 

captures habitat quality in terms of 18 such attributes. Each is 

given a rating between 0 and 4, where 0 implies no effect (no 

 

3

 Appendix A includes a set of algorithms used in the model to adjust 

productivity and capacity values for the varying durations of the trajectory 

segments Note that while the habitat data have discrete (monthly or 

weekly) time steps, the trajectory durations are continuous variables A 

trajectory segment may last a fraction of a week or many weeks
Page 3 0

The EDT Method August 1999

contribution to the multiplier) and 4 implies a lethal effect 

(multiplier becomes zero). 

The capacity parameter for the trajectory segment is computed 

from reach width, percent of key habitat (within the reach), a 

food quantity rating, segment productivity, and benchmark 

productivity and density for the life stage. The calculation is 

iterative. First the weekly benchmark density at the beginning 

of the segment is back calculated, correcting for change in size 

of fish during the life stage (the model includes a size vs. 

density function). Segment capacity is then calculated as the 

cumulative capacity for the segment duration using Equation 3 

above, including a multiplicative adjustment for percent of key 

habitat, reach width and food factor (see Appendix A for 

details).

Data Translation

Biological attribute ratings (

a

h above) are derived from 

observed environmental conditions based on the accumulation 

of information and knowledge available from the scientific 

literature and or from experts in the field of habitat and fish 

biology. The model captures this knowledge in the form of a 

set of biological rules. The most efficient way to generate 

biological attribute ratings is to apply the rules directly to 

observed data. Earlier versions of the EDT, accomplished the 

data translation through a “manual” process, where the ratings 

were supplied by a panel of experts familiar with the watershed 

and with the biology of the diagnostic species. Biologists 

would summarize data and reports and then rate habitat, by 

reach and month, for each of the attributes – relative to 

benchmark conditions by life stage. The “manual” data 

translation process has educational value for the participants.
Page 3 1

The EDT Method August 1999

Appendix B

Diagnostic Species

Watershed management actions should be built on, or be 

consistent with, ecosystem-directed strategies that promote or 

maintain ecologically healthy watersheds. A management 

strategy based on an ecosystem perspective provides a 

scientific basis for evaluating, coordinating, and prioritizing 

watershed actions in a consistent manner. An ecosystem 

strategy is holistic; it recognizes that biotic and abiotic 

components of a watershed are interconnected. Hence, it must 

consider the long-term and collective consequences of many 

activities throughout a watershed.

An ecologically healthy watershed may be defined as one

capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, 

adaptive biological system having the full range of elements 

and processes expected in the natural habitat of the region 

(Angermeier and Karr 1993). This definition of ecological 

health underscores the importance of planning that considers 

the entire biotic community and emphasizes sustainability.

A primary management goal is to ensure the sustainability of 

valued renewable natural resources. The most important 

challenge facing environmental management is to foster a 

balance between short-term human needs and ecosystem 

sustainability (Ruckelshaus 1989; Lee et al. 1992).

Sustainability is defined as the process of change in which the 

continued exploitation or protection of resources, the direction

of investment in land and water, and associated institutional 

changes are consistent with future as well as present objectives 

for perpetuating environmental qualities and socioeconomic 

functions of ecosystems (WCED 1987). Human communities 

generally desire that resource-based values and objectives 

associated with the water and land of a watershed be 

sustainable, even within the context of watersheds that have 

undergone major changes to accommodate human needs.

The concept of sustainability must also recognize that 

ecosystems are constantly evolving. The management concern 

we raise when we worry about sustainability is the direction 
Page 3 2

The EDT Method August 1999

and rate of this evolution. All valued natural resources may not 

be concurrently sustainable in all watersheds.

Certain species or populations that are dependent on the 

relative stability of ecological processes over a large portion of 

a watershed can be used to help diagnose conditions for 

sustainability. The shift toward ecosystem management that 

has occurred in recent years is a move away from a 

conventional, single-species approach to a whole system, 

multi-species framework (Grumbine 1994). This shift poses a 

problem: How do we assess the condition of ecosystems, given 

their inherent complexity? The use of appropriately select ed 

indicator or diagnostic species provides a way of coping with 

this complexity (Soule 1987; Karr 1992; Lee 1993).

Instead of trying to understand all dimensions of an ecological 

whole, the use of indicator organisms that are sensitive to an 

important cross-section of those dimensions gives needed focus 

for an assessment (Lee 1993). Implicit in this concept is the 

assumption that a species that is sensitive to a wide variety of 

ecosystem conditions is useful as a pulse on the system.

Desired conditions for the entire ecosystem may be achieved 

through actions guided by the needs of populations that fill 

representative (umbrella species) or key (keystone species) 

functional roles within the ecosystem (Walker 1995). This 

approach may currently be the most effective way to achieve 

ecosystem sustainability (Olver et al. 1995; Walker 1995). The 

EDT method uses the term diagnostic species to emphasize 

that it is a device to aid in diagnosing and treating watershed 

conditions.

Migratory salmonid species, like salmon, are highly suited as 

diagnostic species. Their freshwater life history depends upon 

streams, the arterial system of the watershed. Streams are 

generally regarded as a good reflection of overall watershed 

condition since water drains downhill, bringing with it 

characteristics created by conditions upstream. Salmonids are 

sensitive to these characteristics (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). 

Because fish are often primary determinants of ecosystem 

structure (Brooks and Dodson 1965; McQueen et al. 1986), 

conditions shaping their survivability and life history are 

important to that structure. 

Certain salmonid species (e.g., chinook, coho, and steelhead) 

utilize extensive portions of the watershed, from the mouth of 

the river to the headwaters of many of its connected branches. 

To complete their life cycles, individuals of these species 
Page 3 3

The EDT Method August 1999

experience the condition of the river from the spawning 

grounds, often located high in the watershed, to the estuary.

Hence the completion of their life cycle depends upon the 

connectivit y of the stream network over various life stages 

(Lichatowich and Mobrand 1995). These life stages, which can 

number seven or more (e.g., prespawning, spawning, 

incubation, colonization, active rearing, inactive, and juvenile 

migration), have different habitat requirements (Bjornn and 

Reiser 1991); therefore, sustainable life history patterns require 

the existence of diverse habitats.

Migratory salmonids have another important, unique role—

they connect ecosystems through their extensive migrations. 

For example, chinook that spawned historically in the upper 

Cispus subbasin (as in Yellowjacket Creek) utilized not just 

this stream, but the lower Cispus, the mainstem Cowlitz River, 

and the Columbia River before moving into the Pacific Ocean. 

There, they traveled extensively for several years prior to the 

return to their natal stream. The concept of ecosystem 

management ultimately must recognize that watersheds (or 

ecosystems) are not isolated (Maser and Sedell 1994); 

conditions in one can have profound implications for the 

sustainability of resources in another. Moreover, salmon are 

among the few species that cycle nutrients between all these 

environments (Kline et al. 1993; Bilby et al. 1995; Willson and 

Halupka 1995).

The potential magnitude of nutrient cycling by salmon and its 

role in ecosystem function have long been acknowledged 

(Juday et al. 1932; Donaldson 1967); but, in general, their 

importance has received scant attention by scientists (Willson 

and Halupka 1995). Recent findings suggest that nutrient 

cycling may be very important to the structure and stability of 

some watersheds, supporting the conclusion that salmon should 

be considered a keystone species in these systems (Bilby et al. 

1995). A keystone species is one that plays a critical role in 

maintaining the biological integrity of the ecosystem to which 

it and many other species belong; the loss of such species leads 

to cascading changes in ecosystem structure (Paine 1969; Paine 

1995).

This potential keystone role is seen in the importance that 

anadromous salmonids have had historically, and continue to 

have in many areas, as critical nutrient sources to numerous 

species (Willson and Halupka 1995). The enormous influx of 

biomass to freshwater systems that can occur through 

anadromous adult salmonids and their progeny can be heavily 
Page 3 4

The EDT Method August 1999

exploited by mammal, bird, and fish species, affecting the 

distribution, survival, and reproduction of these non-salmon 

species.

The findings by Bilby et al. (1995), and their on-going work, 

provide evidence that the capacity of salmon streams to support 

fish may be progressively declining due to reductions in 

nutrient loading caused by diminishing numbers of spawning 

salmon.

In addition to serving as indicators of the quality of watersheds, 

salmon species symbolize the vit ality of the Pacific Northwest 

to human communities (Jay and Matsen 1994). Salmon are 

integral to the heritage and present-day values of people 

throughout the region. In a sense, they are an icon of the 

quality of life in the area.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 1 of 42

Appendix B-1

Level 2 Environmental Attributes

Level 2 Environmental Attributes are a standardized set of attributes for characterizing 

the environment, or ecosystem, as it affects the performance of various species. The 

attributes described here were selected to be applied to fish species, and in particular to 

salmonid species. Other attributes may need to be added to analyze performance for other 

aquatic species within freshwater.

This section provides a brief description for each of the 45 environmental attributes used 

to characterize the freshwater environment. Each of the 45 attributes is defined and 

described with regard to its ecological role, some of the factors affecting its condition, 

and its general importance to salmonid fishes of the Pacific Northwest. These 

descriptions should be helpful to individuals reviewing the Level 2 attribute values and in 

understanding the role of these attributes within the rules. Also, this section will be useful 

in the process of updating Level 2 information through the Assessment Review that the 

Northwest Power Planning Council is initiating in mid 2000.

The attributes are presented in alphabetical order.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 2 of 42

Alkalinity

Definition/Usage

Alkalinity of water (at moderate flows)

Importance and Role

Alkalinity is broadly correlated with the productive capacity of streams, with respect to 

both primary production and fish production. The correlation between alkalinity and fish 

production is believed to be due to the role alkalinity plays in the production of food 

organisms.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Very low (average 

value typically 

would be 0-5 mg/l)

Moderately low 

(average value 

typically would be 

5-25 mg/l)

Moderately high 

(average value 

typically would be 

25-50 mg/l)

High (average 

value typically 

would be 50-150 

mg/l)

High (average 

value typically 

would be 150-250 

mg/l)

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling to 

be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or upper 

ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines

Because of the variability that can occur in alkalinity data and the incompleteness of 

available data for this data, a measure of alkalinity is sought for broad ecological regions 

only. Alkalinity is highly correlated with water yield in watersheds, being lowest in high 

runoff areas.

In general, alkalinity on the west side of the Cascades will fall into index levels 1 and 2. 

Therefore, Index 1 or 2 should be prevalent for the Westside unless evidence indicates 

otherwise. While alkalinity is generally higher on the east than the west side of the 

Cascades, it can vary widely in relation to runoff patterns, proximity to the Cascade crest, 

and local geology. In general, Index 3 and 4 should be prevalent in the mid and lower 

portions of subbasins on the east side of the Cascade crest but lower as the crest is 

approached.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

In general, this attribute should be treated as a low priority. Default values premised on 

the pattern described above can be applied. When the attribute is explicitly addressed, all 

months should be rated the same. Conditions under moderate flows should be considered.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 3 of 42

Effect on Level 3 Biological Metrics

Alkalinity affects the Level 3 attributes Food and Competition (as a modifying attribute 

associated with food fish food production) and, in turn, affects 1) the maximum density 

that can be attained by the end of rearing life stages and 2) resultant species productivity. 

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Hynes (1970) and Ptolemy (1993).

Factors Affecting: Hynes (1970) and Ptolemy (1993).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 4 of 42

Bed Scour

Definition/Usage

Average depth and frequency of scour on small-cobble/gravel riffles during high flow 

events. The term “frequent” indicates at least one event every 1-2 years. Particle sizes of 

substrate modified from Platts et al. (1983) based on information in Gordon et al. (1991): 

gravel (0.2 to 2.9 inch diameter), small cobble (2.9 to 7 inch diameter), large cobble (7 to 

11.9 inch diameter), boulder (>11.9 inch diameter).

Importance and Role

The channel bed is a substrate used by aquatic organisms as a foothold, as a site to 

deposit or incubate eggs, and as a refuge from floods. The substrate can be extremely 

active biologically. The disruption of the particles comprising the upper layer of the 

substrate can therefore have a profound effect on survival and production of species that 

rely on this area of a stream. In particular, scour of bed materials during high flows can 

affect the survival of incubating salmonid eggs and overwintering juveniles located there. 

It can also affect the production of aquatic insects within streams. 

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Pool tailouts and 

riffles very stable, 

characteristic of 

conditions 

prevailing in 

largely spring fed 

streams.

Infrequent scour, 

averaging depths < 

10 cm

Frequent scour, 

averaging depths < 

10 cm

Frequent scour, 

averaging depths > 

10 cm and < 25 cm

Frequent scour, 

averaging depths 

exceeding 25 cm

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling 

to be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or 

upper ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines

Depth of bed scour in natural conditions is affected by discharge level and geomorphic 

conditions. Bed scour is generally assumed to occur when discharge reaches bankfull, 

which typically occurs every 1-2 years under pristine conditions. Some bed mobility 

occurs at stages below bankfull, but widespread bed mobility commonly occurs at a stage 

near bankfull. Steep and low-gradient channels, however, fundamentally differ in the 

extent of bed mobility and the depth of scour during typical bed-mobilizing events 

(Montgomery et al. 1999).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 5 of 42

Bankfull flows generally mobilize the streambed across the entire channel. The average 

thickness of the layer in active transport is related to the bedload transport rate, which is 

determined by the magnitude and duration of the peak discharge.

Increased bedload transport rate in a stream reach may result from increases in peak flow 

or sediment supply—both of which may be caused by various land use activities. Channel 

straightening, diking, and closure of side channels can also increase bedload transport 

rate in a channel.

Bed scour within microhabitats of main channels may differ from surrounding areas due 

to localized conditions. For example, gravels impounded behind log jams may decrease 

local channel gradient enough to reduce bed scour. Elimination of such microhabitats 

may prevent spawning fish from spawning at sites relatively protected from significant 

bed scour. Side channels may also experience less bed scour than main channel areas.

Anadromous salmonids typically bury their eggs 15-20+ cm below the channel bed, 

whereas smaller resident and anadromous trout bury eggs at shallower depths, typically 

5-10 cm (DeVries 1997; Montgomery et al. 1999). Larger females generally dig deeper 

redds than smaller fish do, and egg survival to emergence is inversely related to the depth 

of scour between time of spawning and fry emergence.

Montgomery et al. (1996) reported that chum salmon bury their eggs just below scour 

depths during bankfull flow. This suggests that the average depth of scour in many rivers 

of the Pacific Northwest prior to watershed development must have been less than this 

depth. It is likely that average scour depths have increased to greater than these levels in 

rivers where extensive watershed development has occurred. 

In general, therefore, Index values 2-3 (<10 cm - ~17 cm scour depths) should be 

assumed for unconfined reaches of most streams within the region in pristine conditions 

during bankfull stage. For tightly confined reaches, Index values should be greater; 

values in the range 3-4 (~17 cm - >25 cm) are suggested.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

This attribute is considered as a high priority for rating.

It is necessary to rate only for the month when bed scour would likely be highest. Other 

months will be inferred using modeling techniques within the database by applying an 

appropriate flow pattern for the watershed of interest.

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Level 3 attribute Channel Stability and, in turn, affects resultant 

species productivity. The effects generally occur in the egg incubation and inactive life 

stages, though they can occur in the rearing life stages for certain species as well.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 6 of 42

References/Sources

Definition/Usage: Platts et al. (1983) and Gordon et al. (1992)

Importance and Role : DeVries (1997), Gordon et al. (1992), Montgomery et al. (1996), 

and Montgomery et al. (1999).

Factors Affecting: Gordon et al. (1992), Lisle (1989), Montgomery and Buffington 

(1993), Montgomery et al. (1996), and Montgomery et al. (1999).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 7 of 42

Benthos Diversity and Production

Definition/Usage

Measure of the diversity and production of the benthic community.

Importance and Role

Benthic organisms in flowing waters comprise an important component of the diet of 

many fish species, particularly of juvenile salmonids. Food supply in turn can affect the 

survival of rearing fishes, as well as the maximum densities that can be achieved by these 

species within key habitats. 

Categorical Conclusions: 

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Macroinvertebrates 

abundant; multiple 

species of families 

Emphemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, and 

Trichoptera are 

present.

Intermediate Macroinvertebrates 

common or abundant 

but 1-2 families among 

Emphemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, and 

Trichoptera are not 

present.

Intermediate Macroinvertebrates 

are present only at 

extremely low 

densities and/or 

biomass.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines

The categorical conclusions employed for benthos diversity and production assume that 

biological impairment of the benthic community may be indicated by the absence of 

generally pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa such as Emphemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT).

The EPT is highly sensitive to dissolved oxygen, resulting largely from the combination 

of temperature and nutrient loading. Benthos production and diversity will be at the 

lowest possible level under conditions of super enrichment and high temperature. 

Deleterious effects are assumed to drop sharply with reductions in enrichment levels. The 

EPT can generally be assumed to be highest possible under conditions of no nutrient 

loading because dissolved oxygen is normally at or near saturation in the absence of 

enrichment in the Pacific Northwest.

A suggested guideline is given below that corresponds closely with that for dissolved 

oxygen (see guideline for Dissolved Oxygen); both guidelines are based on water 

temperature and nutrient enrichment (see guideline for Nutrient Enrichment).

Benthos Index Value Lookup Table

Nutrient Mean monthly water temperature (°C)

enrichment 

index value ≤10 >10 and ≤12 >10 and ≤12 >10 and ≤12 >20

0 0 0 0 0 0
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 8 of 42

1 0 0 1 1 1

2 0 0 2 2 2

3 2 2 2 3 3

4 2 2 3 3 4

Other attributes besides nutrient enrichment and water temperature are known to have 

significant effects on benthos production and diversity, such as fine sediment loading, 

riparian function, and toxic substances.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

In general, this attribute should be treated as a low priority for rating. There is generally 

no need to rate this attribute for the region unless unusual conditions are present. Default 

values built from the temperature and oxygen attributes can be formulated within the 

database.

When the attribute is explicitly addressed, all months can be rated the same. 

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Level 3 attribute Food, and in turn, affects 1) the maximum 

density that can be attained by the end of rearing life stages and 2) resultant species 

productivity.

References/Sources

Importance and Role: Chapman (1966) and Hynes (1970). 

Factors Affecting: Allan (1995), Hynes (1960), and Plafkin et al. (1989).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 9 of 42

Channel Width - Month Maximum Width (ft)

Definition/Usage

Average width of the wetted channel during high flow month (average monthly 

conditions). If the stream is braided or contains multiple channels, then the width would 

represent the sum of the wetted widths along a transect that extends across all channels.

Importance and Role 

The wetted width of the channel helps define the quantity of wetted area available as 

habitat for riverine species.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

< 15 ft > 15 ft and < 60 ft > 60 ft and < 100 ft > 100 ft and 360 ft > 360 ft

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling to 

be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or upper 

ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

The width of the wetted channel, except in confined reaches, is normally related to 

discharge.

If width data are not available for the reach of interest, conclusions can be based on 

personal knowledge of the area. In some cases, a better characterization of flow may exist 

than channel width. Here, an estimate of width (in feet) can be obtained from flow (cfs) 

data using an equation formulated for streams in Western Washington from Johnson et al. 

(1988) as follows:

b Width = a ∗CFS

Where a = 4.58 and b = 0.566

Similarly, a relationship can be applied to streams on the eastside of the Cascade crest 

using an equation given in Johnson et al. (1988) as follows:

b Width = a ∗CFS

Where a = 10.03 and b = 0.435

The equation for the westside is based on data collected at 154 sites from a variety of 

rivers and tributaries in Western Washington. The eastside equation was developed with 

data from sites in the Wenatchee River system; this system contains a high degree of 
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 10 of 42

semi- or fully confined reaches. Presumably, therefore the eastside equation should be 

applied to systems that contain a higher amount of confined reaches.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

Channel width – month maximum width (ft) is to be rated for the month when average 

flow tends to be highest. This month will typically be during some part of March-June 

east of the Cascade crest and during December or January on the westside. A flow pattern 

can be applied to extrapolate from the high and low months to all remaining months.

In assigning values to this attribute, it is essential to recognize that channel width here is 

average wetted width during the month, not bankfull width. Individuals assigning widths 

to reaches are encouraged to be as specific as possible (i.e., assign width to the foot if 

possible). If only the categorical conclusion is designated (e.g., an index value of 2), then 

it will be assumed that the midpoint of the range is most applicable (though an index 

value will flag this assumption as being bounded by considerable uncertainty).

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute is used to estimate the wetted surface area of channel reaches in different 

months of the year. Percentages of key habitat for different life stages for the species of 

interest is then applied to wetted surface area to estimate quantities of key habitat at for 

each life stage.

References/Sources 

Factors Affecting: Johnson et al. (1988).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 11 of 42

Channel Width - Month Minimum Width (ft)

Definition/Usage

Average width of the wetted channel during low flow month (average monthly 

conditions). If the stream is braided or contains multiple channels, then the width would 

represent the sum of the wetted widths along a transect that extends across all channels.

Importance and Role 

The wetted width of the channel helps define the quantity of wetted area available to be 

used as habitat by riverine species.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

< 15 ft > 15 ft and < 60 ft > 60 ft and < 100 ft > 100 ft and 360 ft > 360 ft

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling to 

be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or upper 

ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

The width of the wetted channel, except in confined reaches, is normally related to 

discharge.

If width data are not available for the reach of interest, conclusions can be based on 

personal knowledge of the area. In some cases, a better characterization of flow may exist 

than channel width. Here, an estimate of width (in feet) can be obtained from flow (cfs) 

data using an equation formulated for streams in Western Washington from Johnson et al. 

(1988) as follows:

b Width = a ∗CFS

Where a = 4.58 and b = 0.566

Similarly, a relationship can be applied to streams on the eastside of the Cascade crest 

using an equation given in Johnson et al. (1988) as follows:

b Width = a ∗CFS

Where a = 10.03 and b = 0.435

The equation for the westside is based on data collected at 154 sites from a variety of 

rivers and tributaries in Western Washington. The eastside equation was developed with 

data from sites in the Wenatchee River system; this system contains a high degree of 
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 12 of 42

semi- or fully confined reaches. Presumably, therefore the eastside equation should be 

applied to systems that contain a higher amount of confined reaches.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

Channel width – month minimum width (ft) is to be rated for the month when average 

flow tends to be lowest. This month will typically be during late summer or early fall on 

both sides of the Cascade crest. A flow pattern can be applied to extrapolate from the 

high and low months to all remaining months.

Individuals assigning widths to reaches are encouraged to be as specific as possible (i.e., 

assign width to the foot if possible). If only the categorical conclusion is designated (e.g., 

an index value of 2), then it will be assumed that the midpoint of the range is most 

applicable (though an index value will flag this assumption as being bounded by 

considerable uncertainty).

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute is used to estimate the wetted surface area of channel reaches in different 

months of the year. Percentages of key habitat for different life stages for the species of 

interest is then applied to wetted surface area to estimate quantities of key habitat at for 

each life stage. This attribute is also used to group certain Biological Rules (Level 2 to 

Level 3 translation rules) by size of stream.

References/Sources 

Factors Affecting: Johnson et al. (1988).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 13 of 42

Confinement – Natural

Definition/Usage

The extent that the valley floodplain of the reach is confined by natural features—

determined as the ratio between the width of the valley floodplain and the bankfull 

channel width. Note: this attribute addresses the natural (pristine) state of valley 

confinement only. The extent that reaches are confined by hydromodifications (e.g., 

diking) is addressed under a separate attribute.

Importance and Role

Channel confinement affects habitat-forming processes and, hence, the occurrence of 

different types of fish habitats within the stream network. Extent of confinement also 

affects water velocity and flood storage capacity of the floodplain, and, consequently it 

can strongly influence bed stability and potential for scour.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Reach mostly 

unconfined by 

natural features --

Average valley 

width > 4 channel 

widths.

Reach comprised 

approximately 

equally of 

unconfined and 

moderately 

confined sections.

Reach mostly 

moderately 

confined by 

natural features --

Average valley 

width 2 - 4 channel 

widths.

Reach comprised 

approximately 

equally of 

moderately 

confined and 

unconfined 

sections.

Reach mostly 

confined by natural 

features -- Average 

valley width < 2 

channel widt hs.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

Channel morphology and response to high flows are influenced by the degree of 

confinement by valley walls. Unconfined channels typically have relatively wide 

floodplains, relatively low gradients, and often are areas of alluvial aggradation. In this 

situation, sediment supply (of a wide range of sizes) exceeds transport capacity of the 

channel. Steep channels typically are confined by valley walls and shallow bedrock. 

These channels have relatively low sediment storage capacities and serve as transport 

reaches, with sediment loads being carried through the reach during high flow events.

Because confined channels have high transport capacities, their substrates containing 

small cobbles/gravel are typically subject to higher rates of bed scour than are unconfined 

reaches.

The extent of natural confinement can be determined from topography maps, though 

some ground truthing may be required. In Western Washington, natural confinement has 

been determined for many river systems as part of the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat 

Inventory and Assessment Project.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 14 of 42

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

All months are rated the same for this attribute.

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Level 3 attributes Flow and Habitat Diversity, which, in turn, 

affect productivity of certain life stages of salmonids.

References/Sources

Definition/Usage: Schuett-Hames et al. (1994)

Importance and Role : Montgomery and Buffington (1993)

Factors Affecting: Montgomery and Buffington (1993)
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 15 of 42

Confinement – Hydromodifications

Definition/Usage

The extent that man-made structures within or adjacent to the stream channel constrict 

flow (as at bridges) or restrict flow access to the stream's floodplain (due to streamside 

roads, revetments, diking or levees), or the extent that the channel has been ditched or 

channelized.

Importance and Role 

Stream channels are modified to protect adjacent property from streambank erosion and 

flooding. This is accomplished by eliminating and/or reducing meanders to increase 

velocity, construction of levees and dikes, and armoring streambanks. These alterations 

reduce or eliminate (often by blocking access) fish habitat and typically reduce the 

quality of remaining habitat.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

The stream channel 

within the reach is 

essentially fully 

connected to its 

floodplain. Very minor 

structures may exist in 

the reach that do not 

result in flow 

constriction or 

restriction. Note: this 

describes both a 

natural condition within 

a naturally unconfined 

channel as well as the 

natural condition within 

a canyon.

Some portion of 

the stream 

channel, though 

less than 10%, is 

disconnected from 

its floodplain along 

one or both banks 

due to man-made 

structures or 

ditching.

More than 10% 

and less than 40% 

of the entire length 

of the stream 

channel within the 

reach is 

disconnected from 

its floodplain along 

one or both banks 

due to man-made 

structures or 

ditching.

More than 40% 

and less than 80% 

of the entire length 

of the stream 

channel within the 

reach is 

disconnected from 

its floodplain along 

one or both banks 

due to man-made 

structures or 

ditching.

Greater than 80% 

of the entire length 

of the stream 

channel within the 

reach is 

disconnected from 

its floodplain along 

one or both banks 

due to man-made 

structures or 

ditching.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

The assignment of ratings to this attribute is subjective, to be based on a determination of 

the extent that hydromodifications to the channel within a reach have occurred. Such 

determination may be wholly or partially a judgment based on information available. 

Types of alterations to the channel corridor that should be considered are dikes, bank 

armoring, closure of flood relief channels, channel straightening, and channelization.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

All months are rated the same for confinement—hydromodifications.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 16 of 42

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

Confinement—hydromodifications affects the Level 3 attributes Flow and Habitat

Diversity, which, in turn, affects productivity of certain life stages of salmonid fishes.

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Beechie et al. (1994), Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 

Working Group (1998).

Factors Affecting: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 17 of 42

Dissolved Oxygen

Definition/Usage

Average dissolved oxygen within the water column for the specified time interval.

Importance and Role

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a basic requirement for a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Fish and 

aquatic insects require DO to survive and carry on life giving functions.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

> 8 mg/L (allows for all 

biological functions for 

salmonids without 

impairment at 

temperatures ranging 

from 0-25 C)

> 6 mg/L and < 8 

mg/L (causes initial 

stress symptoms for 

some salmonids at 

temperatures 

ranging from 0-25 C)

> 4 and < 6 mg/L 

(stress increased, 

biological function 

impaired)

> 3 and < 4 mg/L 

(growth, food 

conversion 

efficiency, swimming 

performance 

adversely affected)

< 3 mg/L

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling to 

be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or upper 

ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines: 

DO in unpolluted streams and rivers is usually near saturation; and, under these 

circumstances, it poses no risk to biological function to species of concern. Hence index 

values should be set to 0 when nutrient enrichment is nil for all temperature levels.

DO can be severely depleted as a result of human activities that introduce nutrients into 

surface waters. This occurs, for example, when runoff is enriched with fertilizers and 

animal wastes or from municipal discharges. Nutrient enrichment, consisting of elevated 

concentrations of phosphates or nitrates, can lead to oxygen depletion when the stream 

flora increases in biomass followed by death and decomposition of plant material. These 

conditions are made worse when water temperature increases, due to corresponding 

increases in rates of plant growth and subsequent decay. Further, oxygen solubility 

decreases with increasing water temperature. Index values for DO should be set at 4 when 

mean monthly water temperatures are high (>20°C) and super enrichment of nutrients 

occurs. Index values should be reduced corresponding to decreased temperatures or 

nutrient loading.

A guideline for the dissolved oxygen index value is given in the Dissolved Oxygen Index 

Value Lookup Table based on me an monthly water temperature and the Level 2 nutrient 

enrichment index value (see guideline for Nutrient Enrichment).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 18 of 42

Dissolved Oxygen Index Value Lookup Table

Nutrient Mean monthly water temperature (°C)

enrichment 

index value ≤10 >10 and ≤12 >12 and ≤16 >16 and ≤20 >20

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 1 1

2 0 1 1 1 2

3 1 1 2 2 3

4 3 3 4 4 4

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

Rate the month when DO is likely to be lowest, i.e., the month when temperature is 

highest. Rate only one month. Other months will be inferred from an appropriate seasonal 

pattern based on temperature.

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

The attribute, Dissolved Oxygen, affects the Level 3 attribute, Oxygen, which, in turn, 

can affect the productivity of any life stage of stream dwelling fishes.

References/Sources 

Importance and Role : Hynes (1970).

Factors Affecting: Allan (1995), Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 

(1998), and Hynes (1960).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 19 of 42

Embeddedness

Definition/Usage

The extent that larger cobbles or gravel are surrounded or covered by fine sediment.

Importance and Role

Juvenile fish will hide in the interstitial spaces in stream substrates, particularly in winter, 

when the voids are accessible. When these spaces are filled by fine sediment (embedded), 

the quality of the substrate for hiding cover is diminished, and survival can be reduced. It 

can also diminish the flow of water into the substrate, thereby affecting oxygenation of 

incubating eggs buried there. Embeddedness also affects the production of aquatic 

insects.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

< 10% of surface covered 

by fine sediment

> 10 and < 25 % 

covered by fine 

sediment

> 25 and < 50 % 

covered by fine 

sediment

> 50 and < 90 % 

covered by fine 

sediment

> 90% covered by 

fine sediment

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling to 

be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or upper 

ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines

Responses to increases in fine sediment load depend on the ability of the channel to 

transport material relative to sediment supply. Responses can include aggradation, 

channel widening, bed fining, pool filling, or braiding where the amount of introduced 

sediment overwhelms local sediment transport capacity. Increased supply of fine 

sediment to a plane-bed channel is expected to result in either fining of the bed surface or 

channel aggradation. Pool-riffle channels will undergo aggradation and fining in response 

to increased sediment load. Increased sediment supply can also result in expansion of the 

zone of active sediment transport. Although bed scour is expected to increase during high 

flow under this condition, the extent of embeddedness is expected to increase during 

lower flows. Hence, at the highest levels of sediment loading, reaches with the least 

transport capacity (typically lower gradient reaches with slowest water velocities) would 

result in the highest level of deposition and embeddedness.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

All months are to be rated the same for embeddedness. In reality, the extent of 

embeddedness likely varies in response to scour and fill and times when sediment inputs 

are greatest. A temporal pattern may need to be applied in a future application.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 20 of 42

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

Embeddedness affects the Level 3 attribute Sediment and, in turn, species survival of 

free-swimming fish when strongly associated with the streambed.

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Bjornn et al. (1977), Bjornn and Reiser (1991), Chapman and 

Bjornn (1969), Cordone and Kelly (1961), and Platts et al. (1983).

Factors Affecting: Montgomery and Buffington (1993).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 21 of 42

Fine Sediment Load (intragravel)

Definition/Usage

Percentage of fine sediment within pool-tailouts, glides, and riffles. Fine sediment in this 

definition refers to the percentage of the substrate composed of particles <0.85 mm in 

diameter.

Importance and Role

Fine sediment particles within the substrate of pool-tailouts, glides, and riffles can affect 

the survival of incubating salmonid eggs and alevins by altering oxygen exchange across 

the organisms and by entombment. Fine sediment can also affect the benthos, both 

species diversity and production (benthos is rated directly as another attribute, however).

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

< 6% fines < 0.85 mm > 6% and < 11% 

fines < 0.85 mm

> 11% and < 18% 

fines < 0.85 mm

> 18% and < 30% 

fines < 0.85 mm

> 30% fines < 0.85 

mm

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling to 

be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or upper 

ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

Levels of fine sediment in salmon spawning areas of unmanaged streams of the Pacific 

Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska have been reported to generally range between 

6% and 11% (summarized in Peterson et al. 1992). Basin geology and other geomorphic 

conditions (such as channel slope) can affect percent fines in unmanaged conditions. 

Some streams in such areas, however, do have fine sediment levels >11%, and, 

presumably, such situations occur in low slope areas or those with particularly erosive 

geologic conditions.

All measures of watershed disturbance can affect the amount of intragravel fine sediment. 

These disturbances can be associated with agriculture (includes grazing), forestry, 

mining, or urban related. Each of these land use practices contributes major quantities of 

sediment to streams.

 In forested areas, the road system can be a primary contributor; in other cases, slope 

failures and stream bank erosion are most influential.

On the west side of the Olympic Peninsula, Rittmueller (1986) reported that percent fines 

ranged from 0.7% in an unlogged basin to 29% in a stream with the highest sediment 

input coming from heavily used logging roads. Rittmueller found that percent fines 

increased by 0.15% as percent of watershed clearcut increased by 1%. As road density 

increased by 1 km/km2, intragravel fine sediment levels increased by 4.3%. In streams 
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 22 of 42

where logging activity exists, road use and road building had ceased or been minimized 

in recent years, percent fines appeared to have returned to nearly background levels. It 

should be noted that these streams would generally have channel slopes >0.5%, and 

many would have slopes >1%.

In contrast to Rittmueller’s findings, McHenry et al. (1994) suggested that recovery to 

pre-management levels would be slow for streams draining to the west side of the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca on the Olympic Peninsula even with road closure. Geology of the area is 

comprised of sandstones, siltstones and mudstones. Only one of eighteen streams studied 

was found with percent fines (<0.85 mm) <17%. All streams have been extensively 

logged over the past century.

The effect of changes in the fine sediment load carried by a stream on the amount of 

sediment entrained within the upper layer of substrate is related to the ability of the 

channel to transport material relative to sediment supply. In general, the response of a 

channel to changes in sediment load are known to depend on sediment transport capacity. 

Sediment transport capacities are high in high gradient channels, making channel types 

associated with high slopes more resilient to increased sediment loads. Sediment 

transport capacity in lower gradient channels (e.g., those <4%) are more easily 

overwhelmed by increased sediment supply, causing aggradation, channel widening, bed 

fining, pool filling, or braiding. Thus increased sediment loading should show a much 

greater response in intragravel fines in low slope than in higher slope reaches.

For many streams, the intragravel fine sediment level may be considered roughly 

constant over an annual cycle despite periods of scour and fill due to high flows.1

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

All months should be rated the same for fine sediment load (intragravel).2

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Leve l 3 attribute, Sediment Load and, in turn, affects resultant 

species productivity in life stages strongly associated with the substrate, particularly 

during egg incubation.

References/Sources 

Importance and Role : Everest et al. (1987), Bjornn and Reiser (1991), and Peterson et al. 

(1994).

 

1

 Peterson et al. (1994) reported that fine sediment levels in spring, following winter high flows, 

approximated those in the fall prior to the advent of high flows in a salmon spawning stream.

2

 This does not necessarily mean that conditions with a salmon egg pocket would experience the same level 

of fine sediments, particularly over the entire period of incubation. Currently the Biological Rules assume 

that conditions remain constant in the redd over the entire period, but conditions may actually differ by 

hydrologic regime, particularly between streams in the high desert (e.g., the John Day subbasin) and those 

on the west side of the Cascade crest. This matter will be addressed in refining the rules.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 23 of 42

Factors Affecting: Rittmueller (1986), Peterson et al. (1992), and Montgomery and 

Buffington (1993).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 24 of 42

Flow – Change in Inter-annual Variability in High Flows

Definition/Usage

A measure of between-year variation in magnitude of high flow levels and/or the extent 

of change in overall high flow level during a month relative to an undisturbed watershed 

of comparable size, geology, and geography (or as would have existed in the pristine 

state).

Importance and Role

Hydrologic patterns of ecologically healthy watersheds in the coastal ecoregion are 

strongly related to the timing and quantity of flow, characteristics of seasonal water 

storage, and dynamics of surface-subsurface exchanges.

Changes in the timing and quantity of flow, due to land uses and flow regulation, can 

affect responses of stream dwelling organisms like salmonids, leading to changes in 

overall performance of their populations.

Species adapted to disturbance events (such as floods) of intermediate intensity, as 

occurred in most pristine watersheds of the Pacific Northwest, can be negatively affected 

by increases in the frequency and magnitude of disturbance. Changes in flow runoff 

patterns associated with channelization, revetment, and timber harvest can increase both 

magnitude and frequency of high flow events resulting in increased intensity of 

disturbance.

Moreover, hydrologic regimes that have been shifted to more stable patterns (i.e., less 

variation and reduced high flows) can result in loss of habitat quality if channel/habitat 

forming events occur much less frequently.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Pronounced 

decreases in high 

flow levels and/or 

amount of between 

year variation in high 

flow levels relative to 

an undisturbed

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest).

Some evidence of 

decreases in high 

flow levels and/or 

amount of between 

year variation in high 

flow levels relative to 

an undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest)

Typical high flow 

levels and amount 

of variation in high 

flows between 

years relative to 

an undisturbed 

watershed of 

similar size, 

geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for 

the watershed of 

interest).

Some evidence of 

increases in high 

flow levels and/or 

amount of 

between year 

variation in high 

flow levels relative 

to an undisturbed 

watershed of 

similar size, 

geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for 

the watershed of 

interest)

Pronounced 

increases in high 

flow levels and/or 

amount of between 

year variation in high 

flow levels relative to 

an undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 25 of 42

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

The attribute, Flow—Change in Inter-annual Variability in High Flows, operates in 

concert with the attribute Hydrologic Flow Regime—Natural. It defines the amount of 

change that has occurred in between-year variation in high flow or the extent of overall 

change in high flow as a result of watershed development.

Changes in vegetation cover and land use as a result of watershed development can alter 

the hydrograph shape, increasing inter-annual high flow variation and peak discharge. 

Because vegetation cover affects infiltration rates, its removal can cause direct runoff to 

increase and hydrographs to become more peaked. This is most strongly seen in urban 

areas, where total runoff and peak discharges are increased relative to the pristine 

conditions. Depending on the degree of watershed impervious cover, as occurs in urban 

areas, the annual volume of storm water runoff can increase by 2 to 16 times its 

predevelopment rate (Schueler 1995).

The index values for this attribute have been scaled to the pristine state, described by 

Index Value 2. Shifts toward more interannual variability or peak discharge are 

represented by Index Value 3 and 4, less variability or reduced peaks by values 0 and 1. 

The latter conditions would be characteristic of reaches subject to moderate or strong 

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

Rate the month when high flow variability (between years) will be greatest. Rate only 

one month. Other months will be inferred from an appropriate flow pattern for the 

watershed of interest.

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Level 3 attributes Flow, which, in turn, affects productivity of 

certain life stages of salmonids.

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Stanford and Ward (1992).

Factors Affecting: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998), 

Gordon et al. (1993), Schueler (1995).
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 26 of 42

Flow - Changes in Inter-annual Variability in Low Flows

Definition/Usage

A measure of between-year variation in the severity of low flow discharge during a 

month. Variation in low flows as applied here is relative to an undisturbed watershed of 

comparable size, geology, and geography (or as would have existed in the pristine state).

Importance and Role

Hydrologic patterns of ecologically healthy watersheds in the coastal ecoregion are 

strongly related to the timing and quantity of flow, characteristics of seasonal water 

storage, and dynamics of surface-subsurface exchanges.

Changes in the timing and quantity of flow due to land uses and flow regulation can 

affect responses of stream dwelling organisms like salmonids, leading to changes in 

overall performance of their populations.

This attribute defines how low flow (e.g., during late summer) has changed relative to the 

undisturbed state. Changes are considered in both overall level of flow and between-year 

variation. Increased variation in low flow or overall reduced low flow can result in 

survival reduction due to increased exposure or migration difficulties.

Categorical conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Pronounced 

increases in low flow 

levels and between 

year stability in low 

flow levels relative to 

an undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest). This index 

level indicates a 

marked increase in 

both low flow and 

stability compared to 

pristine conditions.

Some evidence of 

increased low flow 

levels and between 

year stability in low 

flow levels relative to 

an undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest). This index 

level some evidence 

exists of an increase 

in both low flow and 

stability compared to 

pristine conditions.

Typical low flows 

and between-year 

variation in low 

flows relative to an 

undisturbed 

watershed of 

similar size, 

geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for 

the watershed of 

interest).

Some evidence 

of reduced low 

flows and/or 

between year 

variation in low 

flow levels 

relative to an 

undisturbed 

watershed of 

similar size, 

geology, and 

geography (or 

as would occur 

in the pristine 

state for the 

watershed of 

interest).

Pronounced 

reductions in low 

flows and/or 

between year 

variation in low 

flow levels relative 

to an undisturbed 

watershed of 

similar size, 

geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for 

the watershed of 

interest).

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

The attribute, Flow—Changes in Inter-annual Variability in Low Flows, operates in 

concert with the attribute Hydrologic Flow Regime—Natural. It defines the amount of 
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 27 of 42

change that has occurred in between-year variation in low flow or the extent of overall 

change in low flow.

Changes in vegetation cover and land use as a result of watershed development can alter 

the hydrograph shape, increasing inter-annual low flow variation or decreasing the 

extreme low flow discharge. Changes in vegetation cover, reduction in the amounts of 

wetlands, and roads can alter the retention time and pattern of runoff in a watershed, 

resulting reduced low flows. Interannual variation in low flows may also be increased. 

Urbanization can result in dramatic reductions in low flows compared to the 

predevelopment condition. Impervious cover prevents infiltration into the soil, reducing 

ground water recharge. Consequently, during extended periods without rainfall, baseflow 

levels are often severely reduced (Simmons and Reynolds 1982).

The index values for this attribute have been scaled to the pristine state, described by 

Index Value 2. Shifts toward more interannual variability or lower low flow discharge are 

represented by Index Value 3 and 4, less variability or inc reased low flows by values 0 

and 1.

Rate as 2 the pristine state for all stream reaches. This index value states that inter-annual 

variation is equal to what would have occurred in the watershed’s natural state.

Rate as 3 or 4 the reaches affected by land uses that increase between-year variation in 

low flow or reduce low flows. Rate as 0 or 1 the reaches subject to flow regulation that 

act to stabilize low flow or increase them. The latter conditions can lead to increased 

survival of salmonids in some life stages, at least in the short-term. Over the long-term, 

habitat-forming disturbance events may be reduced in frequency, leading to degradation 

of some environmental attributes.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

Rate the month when low flow variability (between years) will be greatest. Rate only one 

month. Other months will be inferred from an appropriate flow pattern for the watershed 

of interest.

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Level 3 attributes Flow and Predation3, which, in turn, affect 

productivity of certain life stages of salmonids.

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Stanford and Ward (1992)

Factors Affecting: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998), 

Gordon et al. (1993), Simmons and Reynolds (1982)
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 28 of 42

Flow - Intra Daily (diel) Variation

Definition/Usage

Variability in flow level during a daily period. This attribute is informative mainly for 

regulated rivers or when flow patterns are influenced by storm water runoff.

Importance and Role

Sudden changes in flow associated with flow regulation or storm runoff can result in 

displacement of rearing juveniles or, in the case of loss of flow, in stranding. Such rapid 

flow changes can also affect other environmental attributes, like streambank erosion and 

riparian habitat.

Categorical conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Essentially no 

variation in discharge 

during a 24-hr period. 

During a month, this 

condition would 

characterize most 

flow patterns not 

associated with flow 

ramping by a hydro 

project or storm -

water runoff.

Little variation, on 

average, in 

discharge during a 

24-hr period--typical 

of natural runoff 

pattern during 

relatively small 

rainfall storm events.

Moderate variation, on 

average, in discharge 

during a 24-hr period--

typical of low ramping 

rate associated with 

hydro facilities or 

natural change in 

discharge associated 

with an average to 

above average rainfed 

freshet.

Some evidence of 

increased variation 

in discharge during a 

24-hr period 

compared to natural 

runoff pattern. This 

pattern typical of 

moderate ramping 

condition associated 

with flow regulation.

Extreme variation on 

average over a 24-hr 

period during month. 

This pattern typical 

of severe ramping 

condition associated 

with flow regulation 

or highly urbanized 

areas.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

Most, if not all, pristine basins should be assigned a rating of 0. This rating indicates that 

the average daily fluctuation in flow over a month is slight. (Note: under pristine 

conditions, some streams could experience much more variation over a single day, but 

the average value over a month would be minimal.)

The rating should be applied in consideration of the average expected variation over a 

month.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

Rate the month when diel variation will be greatest. Rate only one month. Other months 

will be inferred from an appropriate flow pattern for the watershed of interest. In this 

case, the month will likely occur during power peaking. Any unusual pattern should be 

noted in the comments.

 

3

 The effect of Low Flow on predation is likely incorrect and will probably be adjusted.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 29 of 42

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Level 3 attribute Flow, which , in turn, affects survival of free 

swimming fish (including emergent fry) or the survival of eggs due to stranding.

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998), 

Gordon et al. (1993)

Factors Affecting: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998), 

Gordon et al. (1993)
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 30 of 42

Flow - Intra-Annual Flow Pattern

Definition/Usage

The average extent of intra-annual flow variation during a month—a measure of a 

stream's flashiness during a season.

Importance and Role

Frequent, significant changes in flow over a relatively short time-period like a month 

associated with flow regulation or storm runoff can result in displacement of rearing 

juveniles during high flows, or, in the case of loss of flow, in stranding.

Categorical conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Pronounced 

decreases in 

variation in daily flow 

during a month (intraannual) relative to an 

undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest).

Some evidence of 

decreased variation 

in daily flow during a 

month (intra-annual) 

relative to an 

undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest).

Typical variation in 

flow variation during 

a month (intraannual) in an 

undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest).

Some evidence of 

increased variation 

in daily flow during a 

month (intra-annual) 

relative to an 

undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine state for the 

watershed of 

interest).

Pronounced 

increases in 

variation in daily flow 

during a month 

(intra-annual) 

relative to an 

undisturbed 

watershed of similar 

size, geology, and 

geography (or as 

would occur in the 

pristine s tate for the 

watershed of 

interest).

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines

This attribute is similar to the one that describes diel variation in flow, only in acts on a 

slightly longer time scale. The extreme on the high end in this attribute would be seen in 

heavily urbanized watersheds. Less extreme conditions would be found in watersheds 

with a high amount of vegetation cover removed (e.g., high degree of clearcutting) or 

high road densities. In heavily urbanized streams, the annual volume of storm water 

runoff can increase by 2 to 16 times the predevelopment rate; essentially every rainfall 

event can produce a sharp spike in the hydrograph, resulting in a high degree of 

flashiness (Schueler 1995). 

Rate as 2 the pristine state for all stream reaches. This index value states that within-year 

variation is equal to what would have occurred in the watershed’s natural state.

Rate as 3 or 4 the reaches affected by land uses that increase within-year variation daily 

flow. Rate as 0 or 1 the reaches that are subject to flow regulation that acts to reduce 

within-year variation.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 31 of 42

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

Rate the month when intra-annual flow variation is greatest. It is assumed that this 

variation will be greatest during high runoff months. Rate only one month. Other months 

will be inferred from an appropriate flow pattern for the watershed of interest. 

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Level 3 attribute Flow and, in turn, principally affects survival 

of fingerlings during overwintering. It can affect other free-swimming stages also. In 

addition, it can affect survival from egg to emergence due to redd stranding.

References/Sources:

Importance and Role : Gordon et al. (1993).

Factors Affecting: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998), 

Gordon et al. (1993), Schueler (1995)
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 32 of 42

Predation Risk

Definition/Usage

Level of predation risk on fish species due to presence of top-level carnivores or unusual 

concentrations of other fish-eating species. This is a classification of per-capita predation 

risk—in terms of the likelihood, magnitude, and frequency of exposure to potential 

predators (assuming other habitat factors are constant).

Importance and Role

Human activities can affect concentrations of fish-eating predators relative to conditions 

that existed prior to Euro-American settlement. In some cases, predator risk has been 

reduced as some fish-eating species have declined sharply due to human activity. Other 

activities, such as construction of dams, have concentrated some fish-eating species, like 

northern pikeminnow, at critical fish passage sites in the Columbia River. These changes 

in relative concentrations (or effectiveness) may have altered predation risk on salmon 

species compared to historic levels in some areas. 

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Many or most native 

predators are depressed 

or rare, none are greatly

increased over natural 

levels, and there may be 

some numerical survival 

advantage to fish as a 

result compared to 

historical predator 

abundance.

Intermediate Diversity and percapita abundance of 

predators exists so 

that predation risk is 

at near-natural level 

and distribution.

Intermediate Excessive population 

density or concentrated 

population of predator 

species exists due to 

artifacts of human 

alteration of the 

environment (e.g., topdown food web effects, 

habitat manipulations).

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

This factor is meant to cover a fairly broad range of types of predation risk, though it 

largely addresses the relative concentration or dispersal of fish-eating predators 

compared to the pristine state associated with dispersed predators. Situations that are 

meant to be covered by this attribute are concentrations of birds or pisivores below dams 

or near juvenile migrant bypasses, and artificially enhanced, concentrations of fish eating 

species associated with the creation of new habitat (as on Rice Island in the Columbia 

River), or large concentrations of hatchery smolts at or near release sites. The natural 

concentrations of pisivores that occurs at the outlet of sockeye producing streams under 

pristine conditions would also be addressed here.

A rating of 2 is assumed to be the historic condition. In areas where human activity acts 

to concentrate fish-eating predators, or to increase their effectiveness at prey capture, 

ratings will increase to 3 or 4. A value of 4 would represent highly unusual conditions 
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 33 of 42

likely to result in a dramatic per capita predation risk on salmon species, as might occur 

below fish bypass facilities associated with some dams.

In areas where human activity has dispersed fish-eating species abundance or reduced 

their overall population abundance (e.g., where bull trout or Dolly Varden are listed 

through the ESA), ratings will be reduced to values <2.

It is recognized that the per capita risk of some fish-eating species may be increased over 

historic levels, while risk associated with other species may be reduced. The assigned 

ratings should represent an average condition across all species.

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

A rating of 2 is assumed to be the historic condition. Rationale to be given for assigned 

ratings should note the fish-eating species that are assumed in the ratings. Consideration 

should be given to species that prey either on small or large fish (i.e., juvenile or adult 

salmon).

Rate the month when per capita predation risk is believed to be highest.

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

This attribute affects the Level 3 attribute, Predation, and, in turn, affects resultant 

species productivity.

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Beamesderfer et al. (1996) and Roby et al. (1998)

Factors Affecting: Beamesderfer et al. (1996) and Roby et al. (1998)
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 34 of 42

Riparian Function

Definition/Usage

A measure of riparian function that has been altered within the reach.

Importance and Role 

The riparian zone is characterized by its vegetation—trees, brush, grass, and sedges. This 

zone and the stream channel are interdependent. The zone comprises those areas near the 

stream channel that affect the channel and are affected by it. Riparian areas constitute the 

interface between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Many of the functional and structural attributes of stream habitat are created and 

maintained through interaction with the riparian vegetation. Healthy riparian areas 

dissipate flood energy, moderate drought, store surface waters, recharge groundwater 

supplies, moderate water temperatures by providing shade, regulate energy inputs, and 

reduce erosion. These areas also provide large-sized wood structure, which is critical in 

creating structural diversity and habitat complexity in streams.4

Categorical Conclusions:

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Strong linkages 

with no 

anthropogenic 

influences.

>75-90% of 

functional 

attributes present 

(overbank flows, 

vegetated 

streambanks, 

groundwater 

interactions 

typically present).

50-75% functional 

attribute ratingsignificant loss of 

riparian functioningminor channel incision, 

diminished riparian 

vegetation structure 

and inputs etc.

25-50% similarity 

to natural 

conditions in 

functional 

attributes- many 

linkages between 

the stream and its 

floodplain are 

severed.

< 25% functional 

attribute rating: 

complete severing 

of floodplainstream linkages

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling to 

be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or upper 

ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

Valley form and channel confinement, including the extent that the channel has been 

artificially modified, strongly affect the extent and maintenance of the riparian zone. 

Unconfined channels tend to flood relatively frequently, promoting riparian development. 

Tightly confined channels, particularly within canyons, have much less opportunity for 

such development and support much smaller riparian zones.

 

4

 Historically large wood was not available in all streams east of the Cascade crest, particularly in the high 

desert. In those streams, other types of vegetation served some of the same purposes as those afforded by 

large wood, see text under "Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines."
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 35 of 42 

Riparian wetlands are an important component of riparian zones. A wetland is a system 

that depends on recurrent or constant inundation or saturation at or near the surface of the 

substrate. Besides providing habitat for fish and wildlife, wetlands provide water storage, 

sediment trapping, flood damage reduction, water quality improvement/pollution control, 

and ground water recharge.

Drawing from the Bureau of Land Managment's (BLM) use of the concept, Proper 

Functioning Condition (PFC), the riparian-wetland area is considered to be proper 

functioning when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:

• dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion 

and improving water quality;

• filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development;

• improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge;

• develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action;

• develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the 

water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl 

breeding, and other uses;

• support greater biodiversity.

The reason the definition of proper function here includes "adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris" is that not all riparian-wetland areas are created 

equally. For example, in many areas west of the Cascade crest, large wood must be

present to dissipate energy, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development. However, 

many streams in the high desert do not have the potential or require large wood to 

dissipate stream energy associated with high streamflows. These streams can dissipate

energy through the presence of vegetation such as willows, sedges, and rushes (Prichard 

1998).

The BLM's definition of function emphasizes the aspect of stream stability. Other 

elements of function are also worth noting, however, including: shading and inputs and 

regulation of energy sources (e.g., litter input) (Spence et al. 1996). 

The assignment of ratings to this attribute is subjective, to be based on a judgment of the 

extent that the elements defined above have been diminished by land use. Conclusions 

are to be based on personal knowledge of the reaches or inferences based on land use. 

Riparian function within urban areas and agricultural valleys will typically be extremely 

modified. Grazing practices are also known to severely impair riparian function. Forestry 

operations, especially using current standards, can result in impaired function, though 

usually not to the level seen with the other land uses.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 36 of 42

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

All months are rated the same for Riparian Function.

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

Riparian Function can affect the Level 3 attributes channel stability, habitat diversity, 

flow, and harassment, which in turn affects species productivity at certain life stages. 

Riparian function also affects other environmental conditions like temperature or habitat 

types. In these cases, however, the linkage is already accounted for in assessing the 

condition of the Level 3 attribute (here, temperature and key habitat).

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Cederholm et al. (2000), Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 

Working Group (1998), Leopold (1997), and Spence et al. (1996)

Factors Affecting: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (1998), 

Prichard (1998), and Spence et al. (1996)
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 37 of 42

Salmon Carcasses

Definition/Usage

Relative abundance of anadromous salmonid carcasses within watershed (e.g., HUC 5 

level) that can serve as nutrient sources for many wildlife and fish species.

Importance and Role 

Salmon act as an ecological process vector, important in the transport of energy and 

nutrients between the ocean, estuaries, and freshwater environments. Salmon serve to 

cycle nutrients between these environments, most notably from the ocean to freshwater, 

where the carcasses can be the source of large amounts of nutrients to the riparian-stream 

system. The carcasses provide food to numerous wildlife species, macroinvertebrates, 

and fish species, including juvenile salmonids.

Categorical Conclusions

Index 0 Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4

Super abundant --

an average 

number of 

carcasses per total 

miles of main 

channel habitat 

>800.

Very abundant --

an average 

number of 

carcasses per total 

miles of main 

channel habitat 

>400 and < 800.

Moderately 

abundant -- an 

average number of 

carcasses per total 

miles of main

channel habitat >200 

and < 400.

Not abundant -- an 

average number of 

carcasses per total 

miles of main 

channel habitat 

>25 and <200.

Very few or none -

- an average 

number of 

carcasses per total 

miles of main 

channel habitat 

<25.

* Where an index value is associated with a range, the integer value is assumed for modeling to 

be the midpoint. Index values can be identified as non-integers to represent the lower or upper 

ends of a range.

Factors Affecting Attribute/Guidelines 

The attribute, Salmon Carcasses, is intended to describe the relative number of salmon 

carcasses available for nutrient input. It is meant only to be a very rough approximation 

of an average annual number of carcasses that becomes available to the system. All 

species of salmon that spawn naturally (including those of hatchery origin) in the system 

should be considered. The density of carcasses is to represent potential availability only 

to the sytem. 5

Special Instructions for New Input or Updates

All months are to be rated the same for Salmon Carcasses.

 

5

 The effectiveness that carcasses can be utilized as food is likely related to channel structure (e.g., as 

provided by wood), flow patterns, and riparian condition. These may need to be incorporated in the 

biological rules that translate the Salmon Carcass attribute into the Level 3 attribute Food.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 38 of 42

Effect on Leve1 3 Biological Metrics

The attribute, Salmon Carcasses, affectd the Level 3 attributes Food and Competition.

References/Sources

Importance and Role : Cederholm et al. (2000)
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 39 of 42

References

Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology—Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman 

and Hall, New York, NY.

Bartholomew, J.L., J.L. Fryer, and J.S. Rohovec. 1992. Impact of myxosporean parasite 

Ceratomyxa shasta on survival of migrating Columbia River basin salmonids. Pages 33-

41 in R.S. Svjcek (ed.) Control of disease in aquaculture. Proceedings of the 19th U.S.-

Japan Meeting on Aquaculture Ise, Mie Prefecture, Japan. October 29-30, 1990. U.S. 

Department of Commerce , NOAA Technical Report NMFS 111.

Bartholomew, J.L., M.J. Whipple, D.G. Stevens, and J.L. Fryer. 1997. The life cycle of 

Ceratomyxa shasta, a myxosporean parasite of salmonids, requires a freshwater 

polychaete as an intermediate host. Journal of Parasitology 83:

Beamer, E.M. and G.R. Pess. 1999. Effects of peak flows on chinook (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) spawning success in two Puget Sound River basins. Pages 67-70 in R. 

Sakrison and P. Sturtevant (eds.) Watershed management to protect declining species. 

American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, VA.

Beamer, E.M. and R.A. Henderson. 1998. Juvenile salmonid use of natural and 

hydromodified stream bank habitat in the mainstem Skagit River, Northwest Washington. 

Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Skagit System 

Cooperative Report, La Conner, WA.

Beamesderfer, R.C.P., D.L. Ward, and A.A. Nigro. 1996. Evaluation of the biological 

basis for a predator control program on northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) 

in the Columbia and Snake rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

53: 2898-2908.

Beechie, T.J. 1998. Rates and pathways of recovery for sediment supply and woody 

debris recruitment in northwestern Washington streams, and implications for salmonid 

habitat restoration.

Begon, M. and M. Mortimer. 1986. Population Ecology: Unified Study of Animals and 

Plants, 2nd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Bisson, R.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.J. 

Murphy, K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in 

the Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. Pages 143-190 in E.O. Salo and T.W. 

Cundy (eds.) Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Institute of 

Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. 

Pages 83-138 in W. R. Meehan, (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management 

on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 40 of 42

Cederholm, C.J., and 13 coauthors. 2000. Pacific salmon and wildlife – ecological 

contexts, relationships, and implications for management. Special edition technical 

report, prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.), Wildlife-Habitat 

Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA.

DeVries, P. 1997. Riverine salmonid egg burial depths: review of published data and 

implications for scour studies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 

1685-1698.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor 

Restoration – Principles, Processes, and Practices. Joint Report of Federal Agencies.

Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An 

Introduction for Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England.

Hawkins, C.P. and 10 coauthors. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying stream 

habitat features. Fisheries (Bethesda) 18(6): 3-12.

Hayman, R.A., E.M. Beamer, and R.E. McClure. 1996. FY 1995 Skagit River Chinook 

Restoration Research Report No. 1. Skagit System Cooperative. La Conner, WA.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press.

Johnson, T.H., L. Brown, and M. Chilcote. 1988. Steelhead smolt carrying capacity for 

sub-basins to the Columbia River. Unpublished manuscript, Washington Department of 

Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Leopold, L.B. 1997. Waters, Rivers, and Creeks. University Science Books, Sausalito, 

CA.

Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, North 

Coastal California. Water Resources Research 25(6): 1303-1319.

Markiw, M.E., and K. Wolf. 1983. Myxosoma cerebralis: (Myxozoa: Myxosporea) 

etiological agent of salmonid whirling disease requires tubificid worm (Annelida: 

Oligochaeta) in its life cycle. Journal of Protozoology 30: 561-564.

Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell. 1994. From the Forest to the Sea: the Ecology of Wood in 

Streams, Rivers, Estuaries, and Oceans, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.

McCullough, D.A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water 

temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to 

chinook salmon. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Portland, OR.

McHenry, M.L., D.C. Morrill, and E. Currence. 1994. Spawning gravel quality, 

watershed characteristics and early life history survival of coho salmon and steelhead in 
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 41 of 42

five North Olympic Peninsula watersheds. Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe unpublished 

report. Port Angeles, WA.

McNeil, W.J. 1969. Survival of pink and chum salmon eggs and alevins. Pages 101-117 

in T.G. Northcote (ed.), Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams. H.R. MacMillan 

Lectures in Fisheries, Univ. British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, BC.

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification , prediction of 

channel response, and assessment of channel condition. Report TFW-SH10-93-002. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, N.P. Peterson D. Scheutt-Hames, and T.P. Quinn. 

1996. Streambed scour, egg burial depths and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed 

surface mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 53: 1061-1070.

Mulcahy, D., J. Burke, R. Pascho, and C.K. Jenes. 1982. Pathogenesis of Infectious 

Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus in adult sockeye salmon. Journal Fisheries Research Board 

of Canada 39(8): 1144-1149.

Peterson, N.P., A. Hendry, and T.P. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on 

salmonid habitat: some suggested parameters and target conditions. Report TFW-F3-92-

001, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Prichard, D. 1998. Riparian area management—a user guide to assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. Technical Reference 

1737-15, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

Rittmueller, J.F. 1986. Effects of logging roads on the composition of spawning gravel in 

streams of the west slope Olympic Mountains, Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA.

Roby, D.D., D.P. Craig, K. Collis, and S.L. Adamany. 1998. Avian predation on juvenile 

salmonids in the Columbia River basin. Annual Report prepared for Bonneville Power 

Administration, Contract No. 97BI33475, Portland, OR.

Schueler, T. 1995. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 

1(3): 100-111.

Simmons, D., and R. Reynolds. 1982. Effects of urbanization on baseflow of selected 

south shore streams, Long Island, NY. Water Resources Bulletin 18(5): 797-805.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem 

approach to salmonid conservation. Report by Management Technology, TR-4501-96-

6057.
Biological Rules Appendix B-1 August 2000 / Page 42 of 42

Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, H.W. Li, and B.A. McIntosh. 1999. Multiscale thermal 

refugia and stream habitat associations of chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon. 

Ecological Applications 9(1): 301-319.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams—sources, biological effects, and control. 

American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

Williams, I.V., and D.F. Amend. 1976. A natural epizootic of infectious hematopoietic 

necrosis in fry of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at Chilko Lake, British 

Columbia. Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 1564-1567.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

APPENDIX B-2

Rules for Translating

Level 2 Environmental Attribute Values

To

Level 3 Biometrics for Chinook Salmon

DRAFT

LARRY'S August 4 DRAFT


2/13/02 1:45 PM

The Information Structure provides a way of summarizing and synthesizing a wide range of 

environmental input data (referred to as Level 1 input data) into a standardized set of 

environmental attributes (Table 1). These attributes, called Level 2 Environmental Attributes, 

represent a sort of digital characterization of the ecosystem. They describe the condition of the 

environment (both abiotic and biotic elements) encountered by various species. In concept, a set 

of Level 2 Environmental attributes can be described for analyzing any species.

The rules presented in this document are used to translate this characterization of the ecosystem 

expressed in the Level 2 attributes into survival-related performance measures for a single 

species, chinook salmon. They describe our assumptions about how environmental conditions 

affect these performance measures, or biometrics, for chinook salmon. These biometrics are also 

defined through a set of attributes, called Biological Performance Attributes (Table 3), which act 

as sort of “umbrella attributes” that group similar Level 2 environmental attributes together. In 

this case, however, the Biological Performance Attributes are assessed "through the eyes of the 

species" and define species sensitivity to one or more Level 2 Environmental Attributes. Level 3 

biometrics are life-stage specific for the species of interest; chinook salmon life stages are 

defined in Table 3.

At this time, we have only developed rules for relating environmental conditions to chinook 

performance within freshwater. Consequently, Level 2 Environmental Attributes have only been 

defined to date for freshwater environments only, not for estuarine or marine environments. 

Interest exists among different entities to undertake a similar process for developing attributes 

and rules for estuarine and marine environments but to date no effort to do so has been initiated. 

The rules presented here should be considered provisional—they are currently under review and 

refinements are expected. Moreover, we believe the rules should periodically be reviewed and 

refined through an on-going process as new information or understanding becomes available. We 

suggest that some type of formal process be established for this purpose. We think the rules 

should be a primary focus of attention by scientists with different expertise, providing the region 

with a common "state-of-understanding" about the effects of different attributes on species 

survival by life stage. Uncertainty about the rules will always exist to some extent, but when 

described it can help identify research needs, particularly for those attributes found to be most 

critical to species performance in the region.

The main body of this document is organized into two parts following the Introduction. Part I, 

"Rule Derivation, Structure and Presentation Format", describes how the rules were derived and 

structured, along with an explanation of the format for presentation. Part II provides the rules.

Four appendices are included to this document. Appendix 1 gives a description of the Level 2 

Environmental Attributes. Each of the 45 attributes is defined and described with regard to its 

ecological role, some of the factors affecting its condition, and its general importance to 

salmonid fishes of the Pacific Northwest. This material will be helpful to individuals reviewing 

the Level 2 attribute values and for gaining an understanding of the role of these attributes within 

the rules. Also, the material will be useful in the process of updating Level 2 information through 

the Assessment Review that the Northwest Power Planning Council is initiating in mid 2000.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Appendices 2-4 consist of tables referenced in the section "Rule Derivation, Structure and 

Presentation Format."
 

2/13/02 1:45 PM

Table 1. Level 2 Environmental Attributes. All attributes except length can be treated as 

categorical.

Name Definition

Alkalinity Alkalinity of water (conductivity can be used as a surrogate) (at 

moderate flows)

Bed scour Average depth and frequency of scour on small-cobble/gravel riffles 

during high flow events. Frequent indicates at least one event every 

1-2 years. Particle sizes of substrate modified from Platts et al. 

(1983) based on information in Gordon et a. (1991): gravel (0.2 to 

2.9 inch diameter), small cobble (2.9 to 7 inch diameter), large 

cobble (7 to 11.9 inch diameter), boulder (>11.9 inch diameter).

Benthos diversity and 

production Measure of the diversity and production of the benthos community.

Channel length Length of the primary channel contained with the stream reach --

Note: this attribute will not be given by a categories but rather will 

be a point estimate. Length of channel is given for the main channel 

only--multiple channels do not add length.

Channel width - month 

maximum width (ft)

Average width of the wetted channel during peak flow month 

(average monthly conditions). If the stream is braided or contains 

multiple channels, then the width would represent the sum of the 

wetted widths along a transect that extends across all channels. 

Note: Categories are not to be used for calculation of wetted surface 

area; categories here are used to designate relative stream size.

Channel width - month 

minimum width (ft

Average width of the wetted channel. If the stream is braided or 

contains multiple channels, then the width would represent the sum 

of the wetted widths along a transect that extends across all 

channels. Note: Categories are not to be used for calculation of 

wetted surface area; categories here are used to designate relative 

stream size.

Confinement -

Hydromodifications

The extent that man-made structures within or adjacent to the stream 

channel constrict flow (as at bridges) or restrict flow access to the 

stream's floodplain (due to streamside roads, revetments, diking or 

levees) or the extent that the channel has been ditched or 

channelized.

Confinement - natural The extent that the valley floodplain of the reach is confined by 

natural features. It is determined as the ratio between the width of 

the valley floodplain and the bankful channel width. Note: this 

attribute addresses the natural (pristine) state of valley confinement 

only.

Dissolved oxygen Average dissolved oxygen within the water column for the specified 

time interval.

Embeddedness The extent that larger cobbles or gravel are surrounded by or covered 

by fine sediment.

Fine sediment

Percentage of fine sediment within pool-tailouts and riffles.

Fish community richness

Measure of the richness of the fish community (no. of fish taxa).
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Name Definition

Fish pathogens The presence of pathogenic organisms (relative abundance and 

species present) having potential for affecting survival of stream 

fishes.

Fish species introductions Extent of introductions of exotic fish species in the vicinity of the 

stream reaches under consideration.

Flow - change in interannual 

variability in high flows

A measure of between year variation in magnitude of high flow 

levels and/or the extent of change in overall high flow level during a 

month relative to an undisturbed watershed of comparable size, 

geology, and geography (or as would have existed in the pristine 

state).

Flow - changes in 

interannual variability in 

low flows

A measure of between year variation in the severity of low flow 

discharge during a month. Variation in low flows as applied here is 

relative to an undisturbed watershed of comparable size, geology, 

and geography (or as would have existed in the pristine state).

Flow - Intra daily (diel) 

variation

Varibility in flow level during a daily period. This attribute is 

informative mainly for regulated rivers or when flow patterns are 

influenced by storm water runoff.

Flow - intra-annual flow 

pattern

The average extent of intra-annual flow variation during a month -- a 

measure of a stream's "flashiness" during a season.

Gradient Average gradient of the main channel of the reach over its entire 

length.

Habitat type - backwater 

pools

Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising backwater 

pools.

Habitat type - beaver ponds Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising beaver 

ponds. Note: these are pools located in the main or side channels, not 

part of off-channel habitat.

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder riffles Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising large 

cobble/boulder riffles.

Habitat type - off-channel 

habitat factor

A multiplier used to estimate the amount of off-channel habitat 

based on the wetted surface area of the all combined in-channel 

habitat.

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising pool 

tailouts and glides.

Habitat type - primary pools Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising pools, 

excluding beaver ponds.

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles

Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising small 

cobble/gravel riffles.

Harassment The relative extent of poaching and/or harassment of fish within the 

stream reach.

Hatchery fish outplants The magnitude of hatchery fish outplants made into the drainage 

over the past 10 years.

Hydrologic regime - natural The natural flow regime within the reach of interest. Flow regime 

typically refers to the seasonal pattern of flow over a year; here it is 

inferred by identification of flow sources. This applies to an 

unregulated river or to the pre-regulation state of a regulated river.

Hydrologic regime -

regulated

The change in the natural hydrograph caused by the operation of 

hydroelectric facilities in a watershed. Definition does not take into 
 

2/13/02 1:45 PM

Name Definition

account daily flow fluctuations (See Flow-Intra-daily Variation 

attribute)

Icing Extent (magnitufe and frequency) of icing events.

Metals - in water column

The extent of dissolved heavy metals within the water column.

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

The extent of heavy metals and miscellaneous toxic pollutants within 

the stream sediments and/or soils adjacent to the stream channel

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water column The extent of miscellaneous toxic pollantants (other than heavy 

metals) within the water column.

Nutrient enrichment The amount of nutrient enrichment consisting of such items as 

ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorous.

Obstructions to fish 

migration

Obstructions to fish passage by physical barriers (not dewatered 

channels or hinderances to migration caused by pollutants or lack of 

oxygen).

Predation risk Level of predation risk on fish species due to presence of top level 

carnivores or unusual concentrations of other fish eating species. 

This is a classification of per-capita predation risk, in terms of the 

likelihood, magnitude and frequency of exposure to potential 

predators (assuming other habitat factors are constant).

Riparian function A measure of riparian function that has been altered within the 

reach.

Salmon Carcasses Relative abundance of andromous salmonid carcasses within 

watershed (e.g., HUC 5 level) that can serve as nutrient sources for 

juvenile salmonid production.

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Maximum water temperatures within the stream reach reach during a 

month.

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month)

Minimum water temperatures within the stream reach reach during a 

month.

Temperature - spatial 

variation

The extent of water temperature variation within the reach as 

influenced by inputs of groundwater.

Turbidity

The relative extent of turbidity episodes within the stream reach.

Water withdrawals The number and relative size of water withdrawals in the stream 

reach.

Wood The amount of wood within the reach. Note definition of "large 

wood" under terms/clarification.
 

2/13/02 1:45 PM

Table 2. Level 3 Biological Performance Attributes (biometrics). The measure of these attributes 

is in relation to the relative survival or performance of the focus species by life stage. These 

attributes act as "umbrella attributes", combining the effects of similar Level 2 attributes on the 

species. Effects measured by these attributes are assessed relative to fully fit individuals when 

present in optimal environmental conditions.

Attribute Definition

Channel stability The effect of stream channel stability (within reach) on the 

relative survival or performance of the focus species; the extent 

of channel stability is with respect to its streambed, banks, and 

its channel shape and location.

Chemicals The effect of toxic substances or toxic conditions on the relative 

survival or performance of the focus species. Substances include 

chemicals and heavy metals. Toxic conditions include low pH.

Competition (with

hatchery fish)

The effect of competition with hatchery produced animals on the 

relative survival or performance of the focus species; 

competition might be for food or space within the stream reach.

Competition (with other 

species)

The effect of competition with other species on the relative 

survival or performance of the focus species; competition might 

be for food or space.

Flow The effect of the amount of stream flow, or the the pattern and 

extent of flow fluctuations, within the stream reach on the 

relative survival or performance of the focus species. Effects of 

flow reductions or dewatering due to water withdrawals are to be 

included as part of this attribute.

Food The effect of the amount, diversity, and availability of food that 

can support the focus species on the its relative survival or 

performance. 

Habitat diversity The effect of the extent of habitat complexity within a stream 

reach on the relative survival or performance of the focus 

species.

Harassment The effect of harassment, poaching, or non-directed harvest (i.e., 

as can occur through hook and release) on the relative survival or 

performance of the focus species.

Key habitat The relative quantity of the primary habitat type(s) utilized by 

the focus species during a life stage; quantity is expressed as 

percent of wetted surface area of the stream channel.

Obstructions The effect of physical structures impeding movement of the 

focus species on its relative survival or performance within a 

stream reach; structures include dams and waterfalls.

Oxygen The effect of the concentration of dissolved oxygen within the 

stream reach on the relative survival or performance of the focus 

species.

Pathogens The effect of pathogens within the stream reach on the relative 

survival or performance of the focus species. The life stage when 

infection occurs is when this effect is accounted for.

Predation The effect of the relative abundance of predators species on the 

relative survival or performance of the focus species, apart from 

 
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Attribute Definition

the influence of the amount of cover habitat used by the focus 

species.

Salinity The effect of the concentration of salts within the reach on the 

relative survival or performance of the focus species.

Sediment load The effect of the amount of the amount of fine sediment present 

in, or passing through, the stream reach on the relative survival 

or performance of the focus species.

Temperature The effect of water temperature with the the stream reach on the 

relative survival or performance of the focus species.

Withdrawals (or 

entrainment)

The effect of entrainment (or injury by screens) at water 

withdrawal structures within the stream reach on the relative 

survival or performance of the focus species. This effect does not 

include dewatering due to water withdrawals, which is covered 

by the flow attribute.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Table 3. Chinook salmon life stages for analyzing the biological performance of the species. 

Only life stages relevant to freshwater are shown.

Attribute Definition

Spawning Period of active spawning, beginning when fish move on to 

spawning beds and initiate redd digging and ending when gametes 

are released.

Egg incubation Egg incubation and alevin development; stage begins at the moment 

of the release of gametes by spawners and ends at fry emergence.

Fry colonization Fry emergence and initial dispersal; time period is typically very 

short, beginning at fry emergence and ending when fry begin active 

feeding associated with a key habitat.

0-age resident rearing Rearing by age 0 fish that is largely associated with a small "home 

range"; these fish are generally territorial (note: this behavior 

typifies the pattern of feeding/rearing by spring chinook in 

headwater stream reaches).

0-age transient rearing Rearing by age 0 fish accompanied by directional movement (I.e., 

these fish do not have home ranges); these fish are non-territorial, 

though agonistic behavior may still be exhibited (note: this pattern 

typifies a 0-age fall chinook rearing pattern).

0-age migrant Directional migration by age 0 fish that tends to be rapid and not 

strongly associated with feeding/rearing (note: fish displaying strong 

smolt characteristics typify this life stage).

Inactive Largely inactive or semi-dormant fish age 0 fish; this behavior is 

associated with overwintering, when feeding is reduced; fish 

exhibiting this behavior need to be largely sustained by lipid 

reserves.

1-age resident rearing Feeding/rearing by age 1 fish that is associated with a home range; 

these fish are often territorial.

1-age migrant Directional migration by age 1 fish that tends to be rapid and not 

strongly associated with feeding/rearing (note: fish displaying strong 

smolt characteristics typify this life stage).

Migrant prespawner Adult fish approaching sexual maturity that are migrating to their 

natal stream; in the ocean this stage occurs in the final year of 

marine life, in freshwater feeding has generally ceased.

Holding prespawner Adult fish approaching sexual maturity that are largely stationary 

and holding, while en route to their spawning grounds; distance to 

the spawning grounds from holding sites may be short or long.
 

2/13/02 1:45 PM

Part I - Rule Derivation, Structure and Presentation Format

The purpose of the rules presented here is to translate Level 2 Environmental Attribute values 

into survival-related performance measures for chinook salmon. The rules are assumptions about 

how environmental conditions affect these performance measures.

The rules are based on an extensive set of "translation examples" put together by Chris Frissell, 

with further input obtained from the BioRules Work Group.1 We reformatted the information 

from these data sets into the rule sets applied here for chinook salmon, taking into account 

refinements made through the process in definitions and index values of the Level 2 

Environmental Attributes. The rules should be considered as still in a state of development and 

refinement; further review of the rules will help ensure their adequacy and consistency with upto-date thinking and research.

The survival-related performance measures, or biometrics, derived by the rules are defined 

through the Level 3 Biological Performance Attributes. These attributes act as sort of “umbrella 

attributes” that group similar Level 2 Environmental Attributes together, serving to explicitly 

define the sensitivity of the species to one or more of the Level 2 attributes through each Level 3 

attribute. Whereas 45 Level 2 Environmental Attributes are used to characterize the environment 

(Table 1), 17 Level 3 Performance Attributes are used in defining biological response to the 

environment (Table 2). 

The Level 3 biometrics are life-stage specific. Therefore, we formulated a rule set for each Level 

3 Performance Attribute, one rule for each life stage. With eleven life stages applicable to 

chinook salmon in freshwater (Table 3), a total of 176 rules are presented (note: rules were not 

formulated for the Level 3 attribute Salinity, as they were not needed for the current analysis of 

the freshwater environment2). Rules are presented in alphabetical order for Level 3 attributes 

following this narrative.

The rules fall into two classes, each requiring a different format for presentation. The first class 

consists of those that address environmental quality attributes. These attributes directly affect the 

productivity of a population. The second class consists of rules that determine the Level 3 

attribute Key Habitat, a measure of habitat quantity used by the species of interest. This attribute 

operates in concert with environmental quality attributes to affect the capacity of the 

environment for the species. We describe rule structure and presentation format for each rule 

class in the following two sections.

Rules for Environmental Quality Attributes

The rules for deriving Level 3 biometrics for attributes associated with environmental quality 

produce estimates of relative survival for a life stage. Life stage relative survival is the 

proportion of the survival that we assume would occur when environmental quality conditions 

are optimal for survival over an entire life stage. Thus a relative survival value of 1.0 would be 

 

1

 The BioRules Work Group consisted of Bob Bilby, Pete Bisson, Chris Frissell, Larry Lestelle, and Dale 

McCullough

2

 As noted in the Introduction, rules presented here address the freshwater environment only

 

2/13/02 1:45 PM

Secondary and Tertiary Level 2 attributes were applied as assumed relevant. The associations 

between Level 2 and Level 3 attrributes are identified for each life stage in Appendix 3.

We then defined explicit relationships between each Level 2 Environmental Attribute and the 

Level 3 Performance Attribute for each attribute association listed in Appendix Table 2, as 

illustrated in Figure 3. As noted earlier, the relationships are based on "translation examples" put 

together by Chris Frissell, with additional input obtained from the BioRules Work Group, and 

finally, they were reformatted into their current form consistent with refinements in attribute 

definitions.

Life stage sensitivity

Primary Level 2 Factor 0.175

Exponent 2

Constant 0

Life stage sensitivity

Secondary Level 2 Factor 0.12

Exponent 1.4

Constant 0

Life stage sensitivity

Tertiary Level 2 Factor 0.1

Exponent 1.2

Constant 0

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

0 1 2 3 4

Level 2 rating

Sensitivity index

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

0 1 2 3 4

Level 2 rating

Sensitivity index

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

0 1 2 3 4

Level 2 rating

Sensitivity index

Figure 3. Examples of relationships between Level 2 Environmental Attribute 

ratings (Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary) and sensitivity indexes for one Level 3 

Performance Attribute.
 

2/13/02 1:45 PM

Each relationship used to define sensitivity (SensitivityIndex) of a Level 3 attribute to a single 

Level 2 Environmental Attribute i was given the form

C

Level SensitivityIndex F

E

i  +











= ∗

4

2

where F is a factor, E is an exponent, C is a constant, and Level2 is the Level 2 Environmental 

Attribute Index value.

Most relationships were assumed to be strongly curvilinear for Primary Level 2 attributes and 

some Secondary attributes, having extremely little sensitivity to index values of 1, then rapidly 

increasing at values >2. 

Sensitivity of a Level 3 attribute j to all associated Level 2 attributes i was then defined by 

adding the sensitivities for the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary attributes, and converting the 

sum to relative survival (RelSurv) for the life stage, as seen in the following equation

( )

2 7

Re j1−= ∑ ilSurv SensitivityIndex

where the exponent 2.7 is used to shape the function so that low Level 2 attribute index values 

(e.g., values of 1) added from multiple Level 2 attributes retain a minor effect on relative 

survival but with rapidly increasing effect as the total sensitivity index increases to higher 

values. 5

The foregoing equations produce what might be thought of as partial relative survival values 

because they reflect only the mortality components contributed by each Level 3 Performance 

Attribute. Relative survival for a life stage k due to the combination of all Level 3 Performance 

Attributes is simply the product of relative survivals associated with each attribute as seen below

k =∏ j Re lSurv Re lSurv

The parameters that define each relationship were manually selected in order to achieve 

consistency with the "translation examples" noted above, together with updated information from 

the BioRules Work Group and literature determined to be relevant. In shaping these 

relationships, we found it useful to compare estimates that could be derived for actual life stage 

survival (density-independent survival here) to literature values where applicable. Estimated 

actual life stage survival is simply the product of the derived relative survival and benchmark 

survival. Benchmark survival values for chinook salmon used in the analysis are provided in 

Appendix 4.

The format for the presentation of rules for each Level 3 Performance Attribute is explained in 

Figure 4. For each rule, the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Level 2 Environmental Attributes 

 

5

 We have found that the exponent 2 7 produces results consistent with the "translation examples" noted in the text 

and with a large body of habitat rating values provided to us in earlier studies
2/13/02 1:45 PM

are clearly labeled, accompanied by a brief rationale. The rationale is assigned a Level of Proof 

to indicate the relative amount of evidence supporting how the attribute was applied in the rule. 

Four levels of proof were assigned (Table 4). Each rule is accompanied by four examples of 

Level 2 ratings to illustrate the effect on relative survival associated with each Level 3 attribute.

Table 4. Levels of proof assigned to the use of Level 2 Environmental Attributes in rules.

Level of proof Evidence

1 Thoroughly established, generally accepted, good peer-reviewed empirical 

evidence in its favor

2 Strong weight of evidence in support but not fully conclusive

3 Theoretical support with some evidence from experiments or observations

4 Speculative, little empirical support

2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rules for Habitat Quantity Attributes

The rules for deriving the Level 3 biometric for habitat quantity produce estimates of the percent 

of wetted channel surface area comprised of Key Habitat used by the focus species. Key Habitat 

is defined as the primary habitat type(s) utilized by the focus species during a particular life 

stage. Preference for habitat types changes with life stages. Some life stages, like egg incubation, 

occur almost entirely within two habitat types (i.e., pool-tailouts/glides and riffles), while other 

life stages, like actively migrating fish, use all habitat types. Level 2 Environmental Attributes 

for habitat types are found in T able 1; habitat type attributes are those beginning with "Habitat 

Type."

The use of habitat types by individual life stages of chinook salmon is not necessarily "all" or 

none", however. For example, resident rearing by 0-age juvenile chinook does not occur equally 

in those habitat types that are utilized, some types that show use appear to be more preferred than 

others, while other types show almost no use.

The rules were formulated by assigning weights to each habitat type by Chris Frissell and Larry 

Lestelle to represent relative levels of preference. The weights were assigned based on 

information contained within relevant literature and personal observation. As with the rules for 

assessing environmental quality, the weights are assumptions that will require futher refinement.

Percent Key Habitat (%KeyHab) for any life stage was computed to be the sum of the weighted 

percentages of habitat types i within a geographic unit, as follows

= ∑ ∗ %KeyHab %HabTypei Weighti

where %HabTypeiis the percent of wetted channel surface area comprised of habitat type i and 

Weighti is the preference weight for habitat type i in the appropriate life stage.

The format for the presentation of rules for the Level 3 Key Habitat attribute is explained in 

Figure 5. For each rule, the preference weight is shown for each habitat type accompanied by a 

brief rationale. The rationale is assigned a Level of Proof to indicate the relative amount of 

evidence supporting the assigned weight. Levels of proof are those listed in Table 4. Each rule is 

accompanied by three examples showing different combinations of habitat types and resultant 

estimates of Key Habitat.

2/13/02 1:45 PM

Part II - Rules
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Channel Stability

Definition: The effect of stream channel stability (within 

reach) on the relative survival or performance of the focus 

species; the extent of channel stability is with respect to its 

streambed, banks, and its channel shape and location.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Chemicals (Toxic Substances)

Definition: The effect of toxic substances or toxic conditions 

on the relative survival or performance of the focus species. 

Substances include chemicals and heavy metals. Toxic 

conditions include low pH.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Competition with Hatchery Fish

Definition: The effect of competition with hatchery produced 

animals on the relative survival or performance of the focus 

species; competition might be for food or space within the 

stream reach.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Competition with Other Species

Definition: The effect of competition with other species on 

the relative survival or performance of the focus species; 

competition might be for food or space.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Flow

Definition: The effect of the amount of stream flow, or the 

the pattern and extent of flow fluctuations, within the stream 

reach on the relative survival or performance of the focus 

species. Effects of flow reductions or dewatering due to 

water withdrawals are to be included as part of this 

attribute.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Food

Definition: The effect of the amount, diversity, and 

availability of food that can support the focus species on the 

its relative survival or performance.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Habitat Diversity

Definition: The effect of the extent of habitat complexity 

within a stream reach on the relative survival or 

performance of the focus species.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Harassment

Definition: The effect of harassment, poaching, or nondirected harvest (i.e., as can occur through hook and release) 

on the relative survival or performance of the focus species.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Key Habitat

Definition: The relative quantity of the primary habitat 

type(s) utilized by the focus species during a life stage; 

quantity is expressed as percent of wetted surface area of the 

stream channel.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Obstructions

Definition: The effect of physical structures impeding 

movement of the focus species on its relative survival or

performance within a stream reach; structures include dams 

and waterfalls.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Oxygen

Definition: The effect of the concentration of dissolved 

oxygen within the stream reach on the relative survival or 

performance of the focus species.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Pathogens

Definition: The effect of pathogens within the stream reach 

on the relative survival or performance of the focus species. 

The life stage when infection occurs is when this effect is 

accounted for.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Predation

Definition: The effect of the relative abundance of predator 

species on the relative survival or performance of the focus 

species.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Salinity

Definition: The effect of the concentration of salts within the 

reach on the relative survival or performance of the focus 

species.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Sediment Load

Definition: The effect of the amount of the amount of fine 

sediment present in, or passing through, the stream reach on 

the relative survival or performance of the focus species.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Temperature

Definition: The effect of water temperature within the the 

stream reach on the relative survival or performance of the 

focus species.
2/13/02 1:45 PM

Rule for Translation to Level 3 Biometric

Withdrawals (or Entrainment)

Definition: The effect of entrainment (or injury by screens) 

at water withdrawal structures within the stream reach on 

the relative survi val or performance of the focus species. 

This effect does not include dewatering due to water 

withdrawals, which is covered by the flow attribute.
Appendix B-3. Associations used in translating Level 2 Ecological Attribute values to Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute values through rule sets.

Level 2 Ecological Attribute

Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

Spawning Channel stability Bed scour

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Flow Flow - Intra daily (diel) 

varia ion

Food Alkalinity

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood

Harvest Harassment Habitat type - primary 

pools

Riparian func ion Turbidity Wood

KeyHabitat Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Sediment load Turbidity Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

Incubation Channel stability Bed scour Icing Riparian func ion Wood Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Flow - change in 

interannual variability 

Flow - intra-annual flow 

pattern

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Metals - in water 

column

Nutrient enrichment

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Flow Flow - Intra daily (diel) 

varia ion

Food Alkalinity

Harvest Harassment

KeyHabitat Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles

Level 3 Biological 

Performance Attribute Life stage
Appendix B-3. Associations used in translating Level 2 Ecological Attribute values to Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute values through rule sets.

Level 2 Ecological Attribute

Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

Level 3 Biological 

Performance Attribute Life stage

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Sediment load Fine sediment Embeddedness Turbidity

Temperature Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

Fry colonization Channel stability Bed scour Icing Riparian func ion Wood Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Flow - change in 

interannual variability 

Flow - intra-annual flow 

pattern

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Alkalinity Ben hos diversity and 

production

Riparian function Salmon Carcasses

Flow Flow - change in 

interannual variability 

Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Gradient Riparian function Wood

Food Benthos diversity and 

production

Alkalinity Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood Embeddedness Icing

Harvest Harassment Habitat type - primary 

pools

Riparian func ion Turbidity Wood

KeyHabitat Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder riffles

Habitat type - primary 

pools

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Fish community 

richness

Fish species 

introductions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Hatchery fish outplants

Sediment load Turbidity Embeddedness

Temperature Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

0-age resident 

rearing

Channel stability Bed scour Icing Riparian func ion Wood

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment
Appendix B-3. Associations used in translating Level 2 Ecological Attribute values to Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute values through rule sets.

Level 2 Ecological Attribute

Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

Level 3 Biological 

Performance Attribute Life stage

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants Alkalinity Ben hos diversity and 

production

Riparian function Salmon Carcasses

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Alkalinity Ben hos diversity and 

production

Riparian function Salmon Carcasses

Flow Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Habitat type - primary 

pools

Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Food Benthos diversity and 

production

Alkalinity Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood Embeddedness Icing

Harvest Harassment Habitat type - primary 

pools

Riparian func ion Turbidity Wood

KeyHabitat Habitat type - primary 

pools

Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder riffles

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Fish community 

richness

Fish species 

introductions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Hatchery fish outplants

Sediment load Turbidity Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

0-age transient 

rearing

Channel stability Bed scour Icing Riparian func ion Wood

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants Alkalinity Ben hos diversity and 

production

Riparian function Salmon Carcasses

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Alkalinity Ben hos diversity and 

production

Riparian function Salmon Carcasses

Flow Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Habitat type - primary 

pools

Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Food Benthos diversity and 

production

Alkalinity Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood Embeddedness Icing

Harvest Harassment Habitat type - primary 

pools

Riparian func ion Turbidity Wood

KeyHabitat Habitat type - primary 

pools

Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder riffles

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration
Appendix B-3. Associations used in translating Level 2 Ecological Attribute values to Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute values through rule sets.

Level 2 Ecological Attribute

Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

Level 3 Biological 

Performance Attribute Life stage

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Fish community 

richness

Fish species 

introductions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Hatchery fish outplants

Sediment load Turbidity Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

0-age migrant Channel stability Bed scour

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Flow Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Food Benthos diversity and 

production

Alkalinity Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood

Harvest Harassment

KeyHabitat <all habitat types applied equally>

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Fish community 

richness

Fish species 

introductions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Hatchery fish outplants

Sediment load Turbidity Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

Inactive Channel stability Bed scour Icing Riparian func ion Wood Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Flow - change in 

interannual variability 

Flow - intra-annual flow 

pattern

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment
Appendix B-3. Associations used in translating Level 2 Ecological Attribute values to Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute values through rule sets.

Level 2 Ecological Attribute

Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

Level 3 Biological 

Performance Attribute Life stage

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Flow Flow - change in 

interannual variability 

Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Gradient Riparian function Wood

Food Benthos diversity and 

production

Alkalinity Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood Embeddedness Icing

Harvest Harassment

KeyHabitat Habitat type - primary 

pools

Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder riffles

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Fish community 

richness

Fish species 

introductions

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month)

Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Hatchery fish outplants

Sediment load Embeddedness Turbidity Fine sediment

Temperature Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

1-age resident 

rearing

Channel stability Bed scour Icing Riparian func ion Wood

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants Alkalinity Ben hos diversity and 

production

Riparian function Salmon Carcasses

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Alkalinity Ben hos diversity and 

production

Riparian function Salmon Carcasses

Flow Flow - change in 

interannual variability 

Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Gradient Riparian function Wood

Food Benthos diversity and 

production

Alkalinity Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood Embeddedness Icing

Harvest Harassment Habitat type - primary 

pools

Riparian func ion Turbidity Wood

KeyHabitat Habitat type - primary 

pools

Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder riffles

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration
Appendix B-3. Associations used in translating Level 2 Ecological Attribute values to Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute values through rule sets.

Level 2 Ecological Attribute

Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

Level 3 Biological 

Performance Attribute Life stage

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Fish community 

richness

Fish species 

introductions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Hatchery fish outplants

Sediment load Turbidity Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

1-age migrant Channel stability Bed scour

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Flow Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Food Benthos diversity and 

production

Alkalinity Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood Embeddedness Icing

Harvest Harassment

KeyHabitat <all habitat types applied equally>

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Fish community 

richness

Fish species 

introductions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Hatchery fish outplants

Sediment load Turbidity Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

Prespawning 

migrant

Channel stability Bed scour

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment
Appendix B-3. Associations used in translating Level 2 Ecological Attribute values to Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute values through rule sets.

Level 2 Ecological Attribute

Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

Level 3 Biological 

Performance Attribute Life stage

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Flow Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Food Alkalinity

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian function Wood

Harvest Harassment Habitat type - primary 

pools

Riparian func ion Turbidity Wood

KeyHabitat <all habitat types applied equally>

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Sediment load Turbidity Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals

Prespawning 

holding

Channel stability Bed scour

Chemicals Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

Metals - in water 

column

Metals/Pollutants - in 

sediments/soils

Nutrient enrichment

Competition (with 

hatchery fish)

Hatchery fish outplants

Competition (with o her 

species)

Fish community 

richness

Flow Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - beaver 

ponds

Habitat type - primary 

pools

Confinement - natural Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Food Alkalinity

Habitat diversity Gradient Confinement - 

Hydromodifications

Riparian func ion Wood

Harvest Harassment Habitat type - primary 

pools

Riparian func ion Turbidity Wood

KeyHabitat

Obstruc ions Obstructions to fish 

migration
Appendix B-3. Associations used in translating Level 2 Ecological Attribute values to Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute values through rule sets.

Level 2 Ecological Attribute

Primary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

Level 3 Biological 

Performance Attribute Life stage

Oxygen Dissolved oxygen

Pathogens Fish pathogens Fish species 

introduc ions

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Nutrient enrichment

Predation Predation risk Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Sediment load Turbidity Flow - changes in 

interannual variability 

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature Temperature - daily 

maximum (by month)

Temperature - spatial 

variation

Withdrawals Water withdrawals
Appendix B-4 

Benchmarks

The EDT method associates survival with habitat. The productivity and capacity values derived 

in the EDT process are characteristics of the environment by time and location as interpreted 

“though the eyes of salmon” by species and life stage. The procedure for deriving these 

productivity and capacity values involves what we refer to as a shaping of survival conditions 

over time and space, as salmon might experience them in completing their life cycle. The 

shaping of survival conditions is done with reference to a defined set of “benchmark” conditions.

From literature we can identify habitat requirements by life stage for the species. We can take it a 

step further and describe optimal conditions and the expected survival and density limits by life 

stage. We refer to the survival and density values associated with optimal conditions as reference 

benchmarks. Thus benchmarks provide us with a set of descriptions for optimal conditions 

expressed as productivity survival, maximum densities, and habitat characteristics for each life 

stage. These conditions constitute what can be thought of “as good as it gets” for survival of the 

species in nature. We have employed a set of benchmark values derived from reviewing relevant 

sources of information, including discussions with scientists having expertise in survival of 

salmonids by life stage under various conditions.

The systematic shaping of survival conditions using the habitat rating procedures is intended to 

assure that productivity and capacity values for each life history segment along a trajectory are: 

a) bounded by the biological limits of the species, b) scaled consistently across time, space, and 

life stage, and c) scaled consistently with the benchmark values.

It is important to keep in mind that benchmark or optimal conditions are different from template 

(pre-development) conditions. Template conditions were not always optimal for salmon survival. 

The benchmark descriptions serve as a point of reference for both the patient and template and 

for all watersheds.

Table 1 provides a list of productivity survival values for chinook salmon used in the Columbia 

River analysis for freshwater environments. Tables 2 and 3 provide this information for 

steelhead and bull trout.
Table 1. Benchmark productivity survival values by freshwater life stage for chinook 

salmon. Values have been rounded. Sterotypical life stage durations are shown.

Life stage Stereotypical duration (weeks) Life stage productivity survival

Spawning 1 1

Egg incubation 25 0.57

Fry colonization 2 0.75

0-age resident rearing 30 0.70

0-age migrant 2 0.96

Inactive (full winter) 19 0.70

1-age resident rearing 8 0.97

1-age migrant 2 0.98

Migrant prespawner 8 0.92

Holding prespawner 8 0.98 
Table .2. Benchmark productivity survival values and capacity densities at the end of each life stage used in 

previous EDT analyses for steelhead trout. Values have been rounded.

Life stage Environmental type Stereotypical Life stage End of life stage

 duration (weeks) productivity survival density (per sq m)

Spawning All types 1 1 0.33

Egg incubation All types 7 0.6 400

Fry colonization Headwater streams 2 0.65 13.58

Fry colonization Low order streams 2 0.65 6.79

Fry colonization Mid order streams 2 0.65 3.40

Fry colonization High order streams 2 0.65 1.70

Fry colonization Mainstem reservoirs 2 0.65 1.70

0-age resident rearing Headwater streams 16 0.5 1.33

0-age resident rearing Low order streams 16 0.5 0.67

0-age resident rearing Mid order streams 16 0.5 0.33

0-age resident rearing High order streams 16 0.5 0.17

0-age resident rearing Mainstem reservoirs 16 0.5 0.17

0-age migrant All types 2 0.975 30

0-age inactive Headwater streams 20 0.85 0.60

0-age inactive Low order streams 20 0.85 0.30

0-age inactive Mid order streams 20 0.85 0.15

0-age inactive High order streams 20 0.85 0.08

0-age inactive Mainstem reservoirs 20 0.85 0.08

1-age resident rearing Headwater streams 28 0.95 0.13

1-age resident rearing Low order streams 28 0.95 0.07

1-age resident rearing Mid order streams 28 0.95 0.03

1-age resident rearing High order streams 28 0.95 0.02

1-age resident rearing Mainstem reservoirs 28 0.95 0.02

1-age migrant All types 2 0.975 30

1-age inactive Headwater streams 20 0.95 0.11

1-age inactive Low order streams 20 0.95 0.06

1-age inactive Mid order streams 20 0.95 0.03

1-age inactive High order streams 20 0.95 0.01

1-age inactive Mainstem reservoirs 20 0.95 0.01

2-age resident rearing Headwater streams 28 0.95 0.06

2-age resident rearing Low order streams 28 0.95 0.03

2-age resident rearing Mid order streams 28 0.95 0.02

2-age resident rearing High order streams 28 0.95 0.01

2-age resident rearing Mainstem reservoirs 28 0.95 0.01

2-age migrant All types 2 0.99 30

2-age inactive Headwater streams 20 0.95 0.06

2-age inactive Low order streams 20 0.95 0.03

2-age inactive Mid order streams 20 0.95 0.02

2-age inactive High order streams 20 0.95 0.01

2-age inactive Mainstem reservoirs 20 0.95 0.01

Migrant prespawner Free flowing rivers and streams 3 1 1

Holding prespawner All types 8 1 1
Table.3. Benchmark productivity survival values and capacity densities at the end of each 

life stage used in previous EDT analyses for bull trout.

Life stage Environmental type Sterotypical Life stage End of life stage

 duration (weeks) productivity survival density (per sq m)

Spawning Headwater 1 1 0.22

Spawning Low Stream Order 1 1 0.22

Spawning Mid Stream Order 1 1 0.22

Egg incubation Headwater 27 0.6 400

Egg incubation Low Stream Order 27 0.6 400

Egg incubation Mid Stream Order 27 0.6 400

Fry colonization Headwater 2 0.75 16.7

Fry colonization Low Stream Order 2 0.75 16.7

Fry colonization Mid Stream Order 2 0.75 16.7

0-age resident rearing Headwater 27 0.6 3

0-age resident rearing Low Stream Order 27 0.6 3

0-age resident rearing Mid Stream Order 27 0.6 3

0-age transient rearing Headwater 27 0.5 3

0-age transient rearing Low Stream Order 27 0.5 3

0-age transient rearing Mid Stream Order 27 0.5 3

0-age migrant Headwater 2 0.9 3

0-age migrant Low Stream Order 2 0.9 3

0-age migrant Mid Stream Order 2 0.9 3

0-age inactive Headwater 18 0.6 2.3

0-age inactive Low Stream Order 18 0.6 2.3

0-age inactive Mid Stream Order 18 0.6 2.3

1-age resident rearing Headwater 34 0.75 1

1-age resident rearing Low Stream Order 34 0.75 1

1-age resident rearing Mid Stream Order 34 0.75 1

1-age transient rearing Headwater 34 0.6 1

1-age transient rearing Low Stream Order 34 0.6 1

1-age transient rearing Mid Stream Order 34 0.6 1

1-age migrant Headwater 2 0.95 1

1-age migrant Low Stream Order 2 0.95 1

1-age migrant Mid Stream Order 2 0.95 1

1-age inactive Headwater 18 0.75 0.5

1-age inactive Low Stream Order 18 0.75 0.5

1-age inactive Mid Stream Order 18 0.75 0.5

2+-age resident rearing Headwater 34 0.9 0.09

2+-age resident rearing Low Stream Order 34 0.9 0.09

2+-age resident rearing Mid Stream Order 34 0.9 0.09

2+-age transient rearing Headwater 6 0.95 0.09

2+-age transient rearing Low Stream Order 6 0.95 0.09

2+-age transient rearing Mid Stream Order 6 0.95 0.09

2+-age migrant Headwater 2 0.975 0.5

2+-age migrant Low Stream Order 2 0.975 0.5

2+-age migrant Mid Stream Order 2 0.975 0.5

2+-age inactive Headwater 18 0.9 0.09

2+-age inactive Low Stream Order 18 0.9 0.09

2+-age inactive Mid Stream Order 18 0.9 0.09

5+-age resident rearing Headwater 34 0.95 0.005

5+-age resident rearing Low Stream Order 34 0.95 0.005

5+-age resident rearing Mid Stream Order 34 0.95 0.005

5+-age transient rearing Headwater 6 0.95 0.005

5+-age transient rearing Low Stream Order 6 0.95 0.005

5+-age transient rearing Mid Stream Order 6 0.95 0.005

5+-age migrant Headwater 2 1 0.09
5+

-age migrant Low Stream Order21 0.09

5+-age migrant Mid Stream Order21 0.09

5+-age inactive Headwater 18 0.95 0.005

5+-age inactive Low Stream Order 18 0.95 0.005

5+-age inactive Mid Stream Order 18 0.95 0.005

Transient prespawner Headwater6 0.95 0.005

Transient prespawner Low Stream Order6 0.95 0.005

Transient prespawner Mid Stream Order6 0.95 0.005

Holding prespawner Headwater 10 0.95 0.005

Holding prespawner Low Stream Order 10 0.95 0.005

Holding prespawner Mid Stream Order 10 0.95 0.005

Post spawner holding/migrant Headwater2 0.7 0.005

Post spawner holding/migrant Low Stream Order2 0.7 0.005

Post spawner holding/migrant Mid Stream Order2 0.7 0.005
Appendix B-5 August 2000 / Page 1

Appendix B-5

References

(organized by Level 3 Biological Performance Attribute)

Channel Stability

Beamer, E.M. and G.R. Pess. 1999. Effects of peak flows on chinook (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) spawning success in two Puget Sound River basins. Pages 67-70 in R. 

Sakrison and P. Sturtevant (eds.) Watershed management to protect declining species. 

American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, VA.

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

DeVries, P. 1997. Riverine salmonid egg burial depths: review of published data and 

implications for scour studies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 

1685-1698.

Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, North Coastal 

California. Water Resources Research 25(6): 1303-1319.

Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, N.P. Peterson D. Scheutt-Hames, and T.P. Quinn. 1996. 

Streambed scour, egg burial depths and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface 

mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 

1061-1070.

Montgomery, D.R., E.M. Beamer, G.R. Pess, and T.P. Quinn. 1999. Channel type and salmonid 

distribution and abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 377-

387.

Peterson, N.P., A. Hendry, and T.P. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid 

habitat: some suggested parameters and target conditions. Report TFW-F3-92-001, 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA.

Seiler, D., L. Kishimoto, and S. Newhauser. 1998. 1997 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook 

production evaluation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Chemicals (includes all toxic substances)

Doudoroff, P. 1976. Toxicity of fish of cyanides and related compounds—a review. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/3-76-038.
Appendix B-5 August 2000 / Page 2

Giattina, J.D., and R.R. Garton. 1983. A review of preference-avoidance responses of fish to 

aquatic contaminants. Pages 44-89 in F.A. Gunther and J.D. Gunther (eds.) Residue 

Reviews—Residues of Pesticides and Other Contaminants in the Total Environment. 

Springer-Verlag. New York, NY.

Katz, M., D.E. Sjolseth, and D.R. Anderson. 1970. Review of the literature regarding the effects 

of water pollution on freshwater fish. In A review of the literature of 1969 on wastewater 

and water pollution control. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 42(6)

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach 

to salmonid conservation. Report by Management Technology, TR-4501-96-6057.

Sprague, J.B., P.F. Elson, and R.L. Saunders. 1965. Sublethal copper-zinc pollution in a salmon 

river—a field and laboratory study. Pages 61-83 in O. Jaag (ed.) Advances in Water 

Pollution Research. Pergamon Press.

Competition

Begon, M. and M. Mortimer. 1986. Population Ecology: Unified Study of Animals and Plants, 

2nd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology—Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman and 

Hall, New York, NY.

Ptolemy, R.A. 1993. Maximum salmonid densities in fluvial habitats in British Columbia. Pages 

223-250 in Proceedings of the 1992 Coho Workshop, Association of Professional 

Biologists of British Columbia and North Pacific International Chapter of the American 

Fisheries Society.

Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. Social interaction between juvenile coho 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) amd fall chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) in Sixes River, Oregon. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29: 1737-1748.

Steward, C.R., and T.C. Bjornn. 1990. Supplementation of salmon and steelhead stocks with 

hatchery fish: a synthesis of published literature. Part 2 In W.H. Miller (ed.) Analysis of 

salmon and steelhead supplementation, Parts 1-3. Technical Report 90-1, Bonneville Power 

Administration. U.S. Department of Energy, Portland, OR.

Flow

Au, D.W.K. 1972. Population dynamics of the coho salmon and its response to logging in three 

coastal streams. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.

Beamer, E.M. and G.R. Pess. 1999. Effects of peak flows on chinook (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) spawning success in two Puget Sound River basins. Pages 67-70 in R. 

Sakrison and P. Sturtevant (eds.) Watershed management to protect declining species. 

American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, VA.
Appendix B-5 August 2000 / Page 3

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction 

for Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England.

Holtby, L.B. 1988. Effects of logging on stream temperatures in Carnation Creek, British 

Columbia, and associated impacts on the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. 

Fish. Aqu. Sci. 45:502-515.

Lestelle, L.C., M.L. Rowse, and C. Weller. 1993b. Evaluation of natural stock improvement 

measures for Hood Canal coho salmon. TR 93-1. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, 

WA.

Onodera, K. 1962. Carrying capacity in a trout stream. Bulletin of the Freshwater Fisheries 

Research Laboratory 12, No.1: 40 pp.

Seiler, D., L. Kishimoto, and S. Newhauser. 1998. 1997 Skagit River wild 0+ chinook 

production evaluation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Food

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Fransen, and P. A. Bisson. 1996. Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from 

spawning coho salmon into the trophic system of small streams: evidence from stable 

isotopes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(1):164-173.

Bilby, R.E., B.R. Fransen, P. A. Bisson, adn J.W. Walter. 1998. Response of juvenile coho 

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to the addition of 

salmon carcasses to two streams in Southwestern Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1909-1918.

Chapman, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1969. Distribution of salmonids in streams, with special 

reference to food and feeding. Pages 153-176 in T.G. Northcote (ed.), Symposium on 

salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Univ. British 

Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, BC.

Cederholm, C.J., and 13 coauthors. 2000. Pacific salmon and wildlife – ecological contexts, 

relationships, and implications for management. Special edition technical report, prepared 

for D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon 

and Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration –

Principles, Processes, and Practices. Joint Report of Federal Agencies.
Appendix B-5 August 2000 / Page 4

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 313-393 

in C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.) Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, 

Canada.

Kline, T.C., Jr., J.J. Goering, O.A. Mathisen, P.H. Poe, P.L. Parker, and R.S. Scalan. 1993. 

Recycling of elements transported upstream by runs of Pacific salmon: II . δ

15N and δ13C 

evidence in the Kvichak River watershed. Bristol Bay, Southwestern Alaska. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 2350-2365.

Ptolemy, R.A. 1993. Maximum salmonid densities in fluvial habitats in British Columbia. Pages 

223-250 in Proceedings of the 1992 Coho Workshop, Association of Professional 

Biologists of British Columbia and North Pacific International Chapter of the American 

Fisheries Society.

Waters, T.F. 1969. Invertebrate drift-ecology and significance to stream fishes. Pages 121-134 in

T.G. Northcote (ed.), Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan 

Lectures in Fisheries. Univ. British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, BC.

Wipfill, M.S., J.P. Hudson, D.T. Chaloner, J.P. Caouette. 1999. Influence of salmon spawner 

densities on stream productivity in Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 56: 1600-1611.

Habitat Diversity

Beamer, E.M. and R.A. Henderson. 1998. Juvenile salmonid use of natural and hydromodified

stream bank habitat in the mainstem Skagit River, Northwest Washington. Report prepared 

for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Skagit System Cooperative Report, La 

Conner, WA.

Beechie, T.J. 1998. Rates and pathways of recovery for sediment supply and woody debris 

recruitment in northwestern Washington streams, and implications for salmonid habitat 

restoration.

Bisson, R.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.J. Murphy, 

K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific 

Northwest: past, present, and future. Pages 143-190 in E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (eds.) 

Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Institute of Forest Resources, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Hayman, R.A., E.M. Beamer, and R.E. McClure. 1996. FY 1995 Skagit River Chinook 

Restoration Research Report No. 1. Skagit System Cooperative. La Conner, WA.
Appendix B-5 August 2000 / Page 5

Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell. 1994. From the Forest to the Sea: the Ecology of Wood in Streams, 

Rivers, Estuaries, and Oceans, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification , prediction of channel 

response, and assessment of channel condition. Report TFW-SH10-93-002. Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

WA.

Peters, R.J., E.E. Knudsen, J. Cederholm, W.J. Scarlett, and G.B. Pauley. 1992. Preliminary 

results of woody debris use by summer rearing juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) in the Clearwater River, Washington. Unpubl. manu. Fishery Resource Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA.

Peterson, N.P., A. Hendry, and T.P. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid 

habitat: some suggested parameters and target conditions. Report TFW-F3-92-001, 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA.

Key Habitat

Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielsen, R.A. Palmason, and L.E. Grove. 1982. A system of naming habitat 

types in small streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low 

streamflow. Pages 62-73 in N.B. Armantrout, (ed.) Aquisition and utilization of aquatic 

habitat inventory information. American Fisheries Society, Western Division, Bethesda, 

MD.

Bjornn, T.C. 1971. Trout and salmon movements in two Idaho streams as related to temperature, 

food, stream flow, cover, and population density. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 100(3): 423-438. 

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Chapman, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1969. Distribution of salmonids in streams, with special 

reference to food and feeding. Pages 153-176 in T.G. Northcote (ed.), Symposium on 

salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Univ. British 

Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, BC.

Hawkins, C.P. and 10 coauthors. 1993. A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat 

features. Fisheries (Bethesda) 18(6): 3-12.

Hayman, R.A., E.M. Beamer, and R.E. McClure. 1996. FY 1995 Skagit River Chinook 

Restoration Research Report No. 1. Skagit System Cooperative. La Conner, WA.
Appendix B-5 August 2000 / Page 6

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 313-393 

in C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.) Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, 

Canada.

Reimers, P.E. 1973. The length of residence of juvenile fall chinook salmon in Sixes River, 

Oregon. Research Reports of the Fish Commission of Oregon. 4:2, Portland, OR.

Oxygen

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press.

Shumway, D.L., C.E. Warren, and P. Doudoroff. 1964. Influence of oxygen concentration and 

water movement on the growth of steelhead trout and coho salmon embryos. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 93:342-356.

Wickett, W.P. 1954. The oxygen supply to salmon eggs in spawning beds. Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 11(6): 933-953.

Pathogens

Bartholomew, J.L., J.L. Fryer, and J.S. Rohovec. 1992. Impact of myxosporean parasite 

Ceratomyxa shasta on survival of migrating Columbia River basin salmonids. Pages 33-41 

in R.S. Svjcek (ed.) Control of disease in aquaculture. Proceedings of the 19th U.S.-Japan 

Meeting on Aquaculture Ise, Mie Prefecture, Japan. October 29-30, 1990. U.S. Department 

of Commerce , NOAA Technical Report NMFS 111.

Bartholomew, J.L., M.J. Whipple, D.G. Stevens, and J.L. Fryer. 1997. The life cycle of 

Ceratomyxa shasta, a myxosporean parasite of salmonids, requires a freshwater polychaete 

as an intermediate host. Journal of Parasitology 83:

Markiw, M.E., and K. Wolf. 1983. Myxosoma cerebralis: (Myxozoa: Myxosporea) etiological 

agent of salmonid whirling disease requires tubificid worm (Annelida: Oligochaeta) in its 

life cycle. Journal of Protozoology 30: 561-564.

Mulcahy, D., J. Burke, R. Pascho, and C.K. Jenes. 1982. Pathogenesis of Infectious 

Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus in adult sockeye salmon. Journal Fisheries Research Board 

of Canada 39(8): 1144-1149.

Williams, I.V., and D.F. Amend. 1976. A natural epizootic of infectious hematopoietic necrosis 

in fry of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) at Chilko Lake, British Columbia. Journal 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 1564-1567.
Appendix B-5 August 2000 / Page 7

Predation

Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology—Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman and 

Hall, New York, NY.

Begon, M. and M. Mortimer. 1986. Population Ecology: Unified Study of Animals and Plants, 

2nd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Beamesderfer, R.C.P., D.L. Ward, and A.A. Nigro. 1996. Evaluation of the biological basis for a 

predator control program on northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in the 

Columbia and Snake rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2898-

2908.

Roby, D.D., D.P. Craig, K. Collis, and S.L. Adamany. 1998. Avian predation on juvenile 

salmonids in the Columbia River basin. Annual Report prepared for Bonneville Power 

Administration, Contract No. 97BI33475, Portland, OR.

Zimmerman, M.P., and D.L. Ward. 1999. Index of predation on juvenile salmonids by northern 

pikeminnow in the lower Columbia River basin, 1994-1996. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 128(6): 995-1007. 

Sediment Load

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large 

salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:1-21.

Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, North Coastal 

California. Water Resources Research 25(6): 1303-1319.

McHenry, M.L., D.C. Morrill, and E. Currence. 1994. Spawning gravel quality, watershed 

characteristics and early life history survival of coho salmon and steelhead in five North 

Olympic Peninsula watersheds. Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe unpublished report. Port 

Angeles, WA.

Rittmueller, J.F. 1986. Effects of logging roads on the composition of spawning gravel in 

streams of the west slope Olympic Mountains, Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA.

Peterson, N.P., A. Hendry, and T.P. Quinn. 1992. Assessment of cumulative effects on salmonid 

habitat: some suggested parameters and target conditions. Report TFW-F3-92-001, 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, WA.
Appendix B-5 August 2000 / Page 8

Tagart, J.V. 1984. Coho salmon survival from egg deposition to fry emergence. In J.M. Walton 

and D.B. Houston, (eds.), Proceedings of the Olympic wild fish conference. Peninsula Coll. 

Fish. Technol. Prog., Port Angeles, WA.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams—sources, biological effects, and control. American 

Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

Temperature

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

McCullough, D.A. 1999. A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water 

temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to 

chinook salmon. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Portland, OR.

McNeil, W.J. 1969. Survival of pink and chum salmon eggs and alevins. Pages 101-117 in T.G. 

Northcote (ed.), Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in 

Fisheries, Univ. British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, BC.

Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, H.W. Li, and B.A. McIntosh. 1999. Multiscale thermal refugia and 

stream habitat associations of chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon. Ecological 

Applications 9(1): 301-319.

Withdrawals

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach 

to salmonid conservation. Report by Management Technology, TR-4501-96-6057.

Rating

Relative 

Productivity

0 1

0.01 0.9999999

0.02 0.9999994

0.03 0.9999982

0.04 0.999996

0.05 0.9999927

0.06 0.9999881

0.07 0.999982

0.08 0.9999741

0.09 0.9999644

0.1 0.9999527

0.11 0.9999389

0.12 0.9999227

0.13 0.999904

0.14 0.9998828

0.15 0.9998588

0.16 0.9998319

0.17 0.999802

0.18 0.999769

0.19 0.9997327

0.2 0.9996929

0.21 0.9996497

0.22 0.9996028

0.23 0.9995522

0.24 0.9994976

0.25 0.9994391

0.26 0.9993765

0.27 0.9993096

0.28 0.9992383

0.29 0.9991626

0.3 0.9990824

0.31 0.9989974

0.32 0.9989077

0.33 0.9988131

0.34 0.9987134

0.35 0.9986087

0.36 0.9984987

0.37 0.9983835

0.38 0.9982628

0.39 0.9981366

0.4 0.9980047

0.41 0.9978672

0.42 0.9977238

0.43 0.9975745

0.44 0.9974192

0.45 0.9972577
0.46 0.9970901

0.47 0.9969161

0.48 0.9967357

0.49 0.9965488

0.5 0.9963553

0.51 0.9961552

0.52 0.9959482

0.53 0.9957344

0.54 0.9955136

0.55 0.9952857

0.56 0.9950507

0.57 0.9948084

0.58 0.9945588

0.59 0.9943018

0.6 0.9940373

0.61 0.9937651

0.62 0.9934853

0.63 0.9931977

0.64 0.9929022

0.65 0.9925988

0.66 0.9922873

0.67 0.9919677

0.68 0.9916399

0.69 0.9913038

0.7 0.9909593

0.71 0.9906063

0.72 0.9902448

0.73 0.9898747

0.74 0.9894958

0.75 0.9891081

0.76 0.9887115

0.77 0.988306

0.78 0.9878914

0.79 0.9874677

0.8 0.9870347

0.81 0.9865925

0.82 0.9861409

0.83 0.9856798

0.84 0.9852092

0.85 0.9847289

0.86 0.984239

0.87 0.9837393

0.88 0.9832297

0.89 0.9827102

0.9 0.9821806

0.91 0.981641

0.92 0.9810911

0.93 0.9805311

0.94 0.9799607

0.95 0.9793799
0.96 0.9787886

0.97 0.9781867

0.98 0.9775742

0.99 0.9769509

1 0.9763169

1.01 0.975672

1.02 0.9750162

1.03 0.9743493

1.04 0.9736714

1.05 0.9729823

1.06 0.9722819

1.07 0.9715702

1.08 0.9708471

1.09 0.9701125

1.1 0.9693664

1.11 0.9686086

1.12 0.9678392

1.13 0.967058

1.14 0.966265

1.15 0.96546

1.16 0.9646431

1.17 0.9638141

1.18 0.9629729

1.19 0.9621196

1.2 0.961254

1.21 0.960376

1.22 0.9594856

1.23 0.9585827

1.24 0.9576672

1.25 0.9567391

1.26 0.9557983

1.27 0.9548448

1.28 0.9538783

1.29 0.952899

1.3 0.9519066

1.31 0.9509012

1.32 0.9498827

1.33 0.948851

1.34 0.947806

1.35 0.9467476

1.36 0.9456758

1.37 0.9445906

1.38 0.9434918

1.39 0.9423794

1.4 0.9412533

1.41 0.9401134

1.42 0.9389597

1.43 0.9377921

1.44 0.9366106

1.45 0.935415
1.46 0.9342053

1.47 0.9329815

1.48 0.9317434

1.49 0.930491

1.5 0.9292243

1.51 0.9279431

1.52 0.9266474

1.53 0.9253371

1.54 0.9240122

1.55 0.9226726

1.56 0.9213182

1.57 0.9199489

1.58 0.9185648

1.59 0.9171657

1.6 0.9157515

1.61 0.9143223

1.62 0.9128779

1.63 0.9114182

1.64 0.9099432

1.65 0.9084529

1.66 0.9069471

1.67 0.9054258

1.68 0.903889

1.69 0.9023365

1.7 0.9007684

1.71 0.8991845

1.72 0.8975847

1.73 0.8959691

1.74 0.8943375

1.75 0.8926899

1.76 0.8910262

1.77 0.8893463

1.78 0.8876503

1.79 0.8859379

1.8 0.8842093

1.81 0.8824642

1.82 0.8807027

1.83 0.8789246

1.84 0.8771299

1.85 0.8753186

1.86 0.8734905

1.87 0.8716457

1.88 0.869784

1.89 0.8679055

1.9 0.8660099

1.91 0.8640973

1.92 0.8621676

1.93 0.8602207

1.94 0.8582566

1.95 0.8562753
1.96 0.8542766

1.97 0.8522604

1.98 0.8502268

1.99 0.8481757

2 0.8461069

2.01 0.8440206

2.02 0.8419164

2.03 0.8397945

2.04 0.8376548

2.05 0.8354971

2.06 0.8333215

2.07 0.8311279

2.08 0.8289161

2.09 0.8266863

2.1 0.8244382

2.11 0.8221718

2.12 0.8198871

2.13 0.817584

2.14 0.8152624

2.15 0.8129224

2.16 0.8105637

2.17 0.8081864

2.18 0.8057905

2.19 0.8033757

2.2 0.8009422

2.21 0.7984897

2.22 0.7960184

2.23 0.793528

2.24 0.7910186

2.25 0.78849

2.26 0.7859423

2.27 0.7833754

2.28 0.7807891

2.29 0.7781835

2.3 0.7755585

2.31 0.772914

2.32 0.77025

2.33 0.7675663

2.34 0.7648631

2.35 0.7621401

2.36 0.7593973

2.37 0.7566348

2.38 0.7538523

2.39 0.7510499

2.4 0.7482275

2.41 0.745385

2.42 0.7425224

2.43 0.7396396

2.44 0.7367366

2.45 0.7338132
2.46 0.7308696

2.47 0.7279055

2.48 0.7249209

2.49 0.7219158

2.5 0.7188902

2.51 0.7158438

2.52 0.7127768

2.53 0.709689

2.54 0.7065804

2.55 0.703451

2.56 0.7003006

2.57 0.6971292

2.58 0.6939367

2.59 0.6907232

2.6 0.6874885

2.61 0.6842325

2.62 0.6809553

2.63 0.6776568

2.64 0.6743368

2.65 0.6709955

2.66 0.6676326

2.67 0.6642481

2.68 0.6608421

2.69 0.6574143

2.7 0.6539649

2.71 0.6504936

2.72 0.6470005

2.73 0.6434855

2.74 0.6399486

2.75 0.6363896

2.76 0.6328086

2.77 0.6292054

2.78 0.6255801

2.79 0.6219325

2.8 0.6182626

2.81 0.6145704

2.82 0.6108558

2.83 0.6071187

2.84 0.6033591

2.85 0.5995769

2.86 0.5957721

2.87 0.5919446

2.88 0.5880944

2.89 0.5842213

2.9 0.5803255

2.91 0.5764067

2.92 0.572465

2.93 0.5685002

2.94 0.5645124

2.95 0.5605014
2.96 0.5564673

2.97 0.5524099

2.98 0.5483293

2.99 0.5442253

3 0.5400979

3.01 0.535947

3.02 0.5317727

3.03 0.5275747

3.04 0.5233532

3.05 0.519108

3.06 0.514839

3.07 0.5105463

3.08 0.5062297

3.09 0.5018892

3.1 0.4975248

3.11 0.4931364

3.12 0.488724

3.13 0.4842874

3.14 0.4798267

3.15 0.4753417

3.16 0.4708325

3.17 0.466299

3.18 0.4617411

3.19 0.4571587

3.2 0.4525519

3.21 0.4479205

3.22 0.4432645

3.23 0.4385839

3.24 0.4338786

3.25 0.4291486

3.26 0.4243937

3.27 0.419614

3.28 0.4148093

3.29 0.4099797

3.3 0.4051251

3.31 0.4002454

3.32 0.3953405

3.33 0.3904105

3.34 0.3854553

3.35 0.3804748

3.36 0.3754689

3.37 0.3704376

3.38 0.3653809

3.39 0.3602987

3.4 0.355191

3.41 0.3500576

3.42 0.3448986

3.43 0.3397139

3.44 0.3345034

3.45 0.3292671
3.46 0.324005

3.47 0.3187169

3.48 0.3134029

3.49 0.3080628

3.5 0.3026967

3.51 0.2973044

3.52 0.2918859

3.53 0.2864413

3.54 0.2809703

3.55 0.275473

3.56 0.2699493

3.57 0.2643992

3.58 0.2588226

3.59 0.2532194

3.6 0.2475896

3.61 0.2419332

3.62 0.2362501

3.63 0.2305402

3.64 0.2248036

3.65 0.2190401

3.66 0.2132496

3.67 0.2074322

3.68 0.2015879

3.69 0.1957164

3.7 0.1898178

3.71 0.1838921

3.72 0.1779392

3.73 0.1719589

3.74 0.1659514

3.75 0.1599165

3.76 0.1538542

3.77 0.1477644

3.78 0.1416471

3.79 0.1355022

3.8 0.1293297

3.81 0.1231295

3.82 0.1169016

3.83 0.1106459

3.84 0.1043624

3.85 0.098051

3.86 0.0917116

3.87 0.0853443

3.88 0.078949

3.89 0.0725256

3.9 0.066074

3.91 0.0595943

3.92 0.0530863

3.93 0.04655

3.94 0.0399854

3.95 0.0333925
3.96 0.026771

3.97 0.0201211

3.98 0.0134427

3.99 0.0067357

4 0
Table C-1a. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Current condition and worldview Moderate.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11 3.62 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.55 1.55 2.00 2.00 2.30 2.30 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.55 1.55

CompH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.80 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.84 0.84 0.77 0.77 0.67 0.61 0.34 0.17 0.32 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.43

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.56 3.39

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.70 0.70 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.64 0.31 0.17 0.23 0.61 0.70 0.70 0.43

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 3.09 3.56 3.39

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.32 0.17 0.23 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.42

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 3.13 3.65 3.49

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.61 0.31 0.14 0.20 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.41

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 3.02 3.51 3.23

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.34 0.20 0.29 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.43

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 3.28 3.54 3.21

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.27 0.18 0.29 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.25

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 3.08 3.77 2.90

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.33 0.10 0.38 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.26

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 3.28 3.33 2.80

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.27 0.26 0.40 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.27

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 3.11 3.01 3.26

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.32 0.35 0.28 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.34

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Subyearling - Current / Page 11
Temp 2.06 3.10 2.66

Pred 1.39 1.39 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.39 1.39

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.69 0.42 0.56 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.69

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 2.33 3.22 2.99

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.50 0.29 0.36 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.52

Subyearling - Current / Page 12
Table C-1b. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Current condition and worldview Technology Pessimistic

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.74 1.74 2.25 2.25 2.59 2.59 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.74 1.74

CompH 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.69 2.25 2.02 1.69 1.69 1.12 1.12 1.12

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.78 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.56 0.49 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.69 0.78 0.78 0.29

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.49 3.85 3.85

Pred 2.01 2.01 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.01 2.01

CompH 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.13 1.69 1.13 1.13 1.69 1.69 1.69

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.52 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.49 0.60 0.60 0.29

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.85 3.85

Pred 2.00 2.00 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.00 2.00

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 1.68 1.12 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.53 0.49 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.55 0.67 0.67 0.29

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.52 3.85 3.85

Pred 2.00 2.00 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.00 2.00

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 1.12 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.50 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.55 0.67 0.67 0.28

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.40 3.85 3.85

Pred 2.00 2.00 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.00 2.00

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.67 0.67 0.54 0.54 0.49 0.49 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.54 0.67 0.67 0.30

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.75 3.75

Pred 1.88 1.88 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 1.88 1.88

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.71 0.71 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.61 0.71 0.71 0.17

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.34 3.85 3.85

Pred 1.93 1.93 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 1.93 1.93

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Unadj Prod 0.70 0.70 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.23 0.06 0.06 0.58 0.70 0.70 0.18

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.49 3.55 3.55

Pred 1.89 1.89 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 1.89 1.89

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.71 0.71 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.60 0.71 0.71 0.19

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.37 3.27 3.27

Pred 1.93 1.93 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.93 1.93

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

Unadj Prod 0.69 0.69 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.58 0.69 0.69 0.23

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Subyearling - Current / Page 13
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 3.83 3.83

Pred 1.72 1.72 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 1.72 1.72

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Unadj Prod 0.82 0.82 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.64 0.49 0.08 0.08 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.47

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.68 3.70 3.70

Pred 2.04 2.04 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.04 2.04

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Unadj Prod 0.65 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.35 0.10 0.10 0.52 0.65 0.65 0.35

Subyearling - Current / Page 14
Table C-1c. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Current condition and worldview Technology Optimistic.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.28 1.28 1.66 1.66 1.90 1.90 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.28 1.28

CompH 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.24 1.66 1.49 1.24 1.24 0.83 0.83 0.83

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.75 0.56 0.45 0.45 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.63

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.95 2.95

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.83 1.24 0.83 0.83 1.24 1.24 1.24

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.77 0.53 0.43 0.43 0.75 0.81 0.81 0.62

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.95 2.95

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.24 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.75 0.54 0.43 0.43 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.61

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 3.02 3.02

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.53 0.41 0.41 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.61

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 2.90 2.90

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.56 0.45 0.45 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.62

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 2.93 2.93

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.51 0.44 0.44 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.49

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 3.12 3.12

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.55 0.38 0.38 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.50

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 2.76 2.76

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.51

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 2.49 2.49

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.55 0.57 0.57 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.56

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Subyearling - Current / Page 15
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.71 2.56 2.56

Pred 1.15 1.15 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.15 1.15

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.87 0.80 0.63 0.63 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.82

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 2.67 2.67

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.67 0.52 0.52 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.70

Subyearling - Current / Page 16
Table C-2a. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Historic condition and worldview Moderate.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 3.30 2.94 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.61 0.36 0.50 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.69

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 3.30 3.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.61 0.36 0.42 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.69

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

Temp 2.60 3.30 3.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.59 0.35 0.41 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.68

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Temp 2.60 3.30 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.61 0.36 0.42 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.69

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Temp 2.60 3.30 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.61 0.36 0.46 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.69

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Temp 2.80 3.40 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.55 0.31 0.45 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.48

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

Temp 2.70 3.30 2.53 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.56 0.35 0.61 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.50

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

Temp 2.60 3.20 2.69 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.59 0.39 0.57 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.53

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

Temp 2.50 3.00 3.24 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.62 0.47 0.37 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.57

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Subyearling - Potential / Page 17
Temp 1.80 2.80 2.41 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.78 0.55 0.66 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.80

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Temp 1.80 2.80 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.16 1.16 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.16 1.16

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.78 0.55 0.61 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.80

Subyearling - Potential / Page 18
Table C-2b. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Historic condition and worldview Technology Pessimistic

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.92 3.71 3.71 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.30 1.30 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.30 1.30

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.48 0.16 0.16 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.59

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 3.72 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.31 1.31 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.31 1.31

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.84 0.89 0.89 0.59

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.92 3.71 3.71 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.30 1.30 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.30 1.30

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.47 0.15 0.15 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.58

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.92 3.70 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.30 1.30 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.30 1.30

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.48 0.16 0.16 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.60

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 3.72 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.31 1.31 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.31 1.31

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.84 0.89 0.89 0.59

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.96 3.60 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.23 1.23 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.23 1.23

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.48 0.22 0.22 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.40

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.26 1.26 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.26 1.26

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Unadj Prod 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.47 0.22 0.22 0.83 0.87 0.87 0.40

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 3.41 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.24 1.24 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.24 1.24

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.46

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 3.26 3.26 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.26 1.26 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.26 1.26

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

Unadj Prod 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.54 0.35 0.35 0.83 0.87 0.87 0.48

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Subyearling - Potential / Page 19
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.22 3.46 3.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.43 1.43 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.43 1.43

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.26 0.26 0.80 0.86 0.86 0.64

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 3.22 3.22 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.33 1.33 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.33 1.33

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Unadj Prod 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.70 0.37 0.37 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.70

Subyearling - Potential / Page 20
Table C-2c. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Historic condition and worldview Technology Optimistic.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 2.73 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.76 0.60 0.60 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.81

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 2.73 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.76 0.60 0.60 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.81

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 2.73 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.74 0.59 0.59 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.80

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 2.73 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.76 0.60 0.60 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.81

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 2.73 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.76 0.60 0.60 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.81

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.32 2.81 2.81 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.72 0.57 0.57 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.67

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 2.73 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.73 0.59 0.59 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.69

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.15 2.65 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.71

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 2.48 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.76 0.66 0.66 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.73

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Subyearling - Potential / Page 21
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 2.32 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.72 0.72 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.90

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 2.32 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 0.96 0.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.96 0.96

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.87 0.72 0.72 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.90

Subyearling - Potential / Page 22
Table C-3a. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 2 condition and worldview Moderate.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.68 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.70 1.70 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.80 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.82 0.82 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.63 0.30 0.14 0.30 0.73 0.83 0.83 0.42

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.56 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.57 1.57 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.74 0.74 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.71 0.33 0.19 0.26 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.47

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.56 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.32 0.17 0.24 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.42

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.96 3.57 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.42 1.42 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.42 1.42

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.43 0.21 0.28 0.79 0.85 0.85 0.53

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.85 3.43 3.15 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.60 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.67 0.67 0.61 0.61 0.39 0.23 0.32 0.67 0.77 0.77 0.46

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 3.81 3.45 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.42 1.42 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.42 1.42

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.83 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.48 0.10 0.26 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.36

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 3.90 2.99 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.42 1.42 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.42 1.42

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.83 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.48 0.05 0.42 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.34

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 3.62 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.42 1.42 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.42 1.42

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.83 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.48 0.18 0.40 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.39

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 3.35 3.62 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.42 1.42 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.42 1.42

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.83 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.48 0.30 0.18 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.42

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Subyearling - Alternative 2 / Page 23
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.90 2.90 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.39 1.39 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.39 1.39

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.60 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.77 0.71 0.49 0.61 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.72

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 3.00 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.53 0.35 0.41 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.54

Subyearling - Alternative 2 / Page 24
Table C-3b. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 2 condition and worldview Technology Pessimistic

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.52 1.52 1.97 1.97 2.27 2.27 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.52 1.52

CompH 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.69 2.25 2.02 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.57 0.17 0.07 0.08 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.32

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.49 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.77 1.77 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39 1.85 1.85

CompH 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.13 1.69 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.65 0.65 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.61 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.71 0.71 0.34

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 2.00 2.00 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.00 2.00

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 1.68 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.53 0.49 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.55 0.67 0.67 0.29

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.32 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.60 1.60 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 1.60 1.60

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.64 0.28 0.07 0.07 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.40

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.21 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 2.00 2.00 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.00 2.00

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.69 0.69 0.56 0.56 0.50 0.50 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.56 0.69 0.69 0.33

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.97 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.51 1.51 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.51 1.51

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.41 0.07 0.07 0.75 0.81 0.81 0.31

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.04 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.54 1.54 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.54 1.54

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Unadj Prod 0.80 0.80 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.38 0.07 0.07 0.73 0.80 0.80 0.29

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.52 1.52 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.52 1.52

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.80 0.80 0.74 0.74 0.72 0.72 0.40 0.07 0.07 0.74 0.80 0.80 0.30

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.05 3.63 3.63 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.55 1.55 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.55 1.55

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

Unadj Prod 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.32

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Subyearling - Alternative 2 / Page 25
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.35 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.72 1.72 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 1.72 1.72

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.98 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Unadj Prod 0.82 0.82 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.62 0.53 0.19 0.19 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.51

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.41 3.44 3.44 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 2.04 2.04 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.04 2.04

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.72 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Unadj Prod 0.65 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.47 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.52 0.65 0.65 0.38

Subyearling - Alternative 2 / Page 26
Table C-3c. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 2 condition and worldview Technology Optimistic.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 3.05 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.12 1.12 1.45 1.45 1.67 1.67 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.12 1.12

CompH 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.24 1.66 1.49 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.79 0.57 0.45 0.47 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.64

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.30 1.30 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.83 1.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.84 0.84 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.55 0.45 0.46 0.82 0.87 0.87 0.65

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.24 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.75 0.54 0.43 0.44 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.61

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.45 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.18 1.18 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.18 1.18

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.63 0.48 0.49 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.70

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.36 2.84 2.84 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.75 0.59 0.48 0.48 0.79 0.86 0.86 0.65

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.32 3.15 3.15 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.18 1.18 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.18 1.18

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.66 0.41 0.41 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.58

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.32 3.23 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.18 1.18 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.18 1.18

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.66 0.38 0.38 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.57

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.32 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.18 1.18 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.18 1.18

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.66 0.47 0.47 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.60

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.32 2.77 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.18 1.18 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.18 1.18

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.66 0.54 0.54 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.63

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Subyearling - Alternative 2 / Page 27
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 2.40 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.15 1.15 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.15 1.15

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.32 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.68 0.68 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.84

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 2.48 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.47 1.47 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.47 1.47

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.75 0.69 0.57 0.57 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.72

Subyearling - Alternative 2 / Page 28
Table C-4a. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 5 condition and worldview Moderate.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.68 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.62 1.62 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 1.70 1.70

CompH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.70 2.30 1.80 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.83 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.60 0.31 0.14 0.31 0.75 0.84 0.84 0.41

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.56 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.49 1.49 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.93 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 1.57 1.57

CompH 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.70 1.50 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.69 0.34 0.19 0.26 0.73 0.80 0.80 0.47

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.56 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.80 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.69 0.65 0.61 0.34 0.18 0.25 0.69 0.77 0.77 0.43

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13 3.65 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.70 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.68 0.64 0.32 0.15 0.22 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.43

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 3.51 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.90 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.60 0.61 0.37 0.21 0.31 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.45

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.54 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.29 0.19 0.32 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.27

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.08 3.77 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.35 0.10 0.42 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.27

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.33 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.29 0.27 0.44 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.29

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11 3.01 3.26 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.34 0.37 0.31 0.72 0.80 0.80 0.36

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Subyearling - Alternative 5 / Page 29
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 3.10 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.39 1.39 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.39 1.39

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.75 0.67 0.42 0.56 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.68

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33 3.22 2.99 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.53 0.31 0.38 0.69 0.77 0.77 0.55

Subyearling - Alternative 5 / Page 30
Table C-4b. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 5 condition and worldview Technology Pessimistic

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.52 1.52 1.97 1.97 2.27 2.27 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.52 1.52

CompH 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.91 2.59 2.02 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.62 0.50 0.17 0.07 0.08 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.29

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.49 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.69 1.69 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 1.77 1.77

CompH 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.92 1.69 1.69 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.66 0.66 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.59 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.72 0.72 0.33

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.84 1.84 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 1.84 1.84

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 2.02 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.69 0.69 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.60 0.69 0.69 0.30

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.52 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.84 1.84 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 1.84 1.84

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 1.91 1.68 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.72 0.72 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.53 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.72 0.72 0.30

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.40 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.84 1.84 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 1.84 1.84

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 2.14 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.71 0.71 0.61 0.61 0.48 0.50 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.71 0.71 0.31

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.75 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.73 1.73 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 1.73 1.73

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.65 0.21 0.10 0.11 0.68 0.77 0.77 0.18

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.34 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.77 1.77 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 1.77 1.77

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.63 0.63 0.24 0.06 0.07 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.19

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.49 3.55 3.55 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.74 1.74 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.74 1.74

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.67 0.67 0.64 0.64 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.67 0.77 0.77 0.20

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.37 3.27 3.27 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.63 0.63 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.25

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Subyearling - Alternative 5 / Page 31
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 3.83 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.72 1.72 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 1.72 1.72

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.22 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Unadj Prod 0.82 0.82 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.58 0.48 0.08 0.08 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.45

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.68 3.70 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.88 1.88 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 1.88 1.88

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Unadj Prod 0.68 0.68 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.58 0.68 0.68 0.39

Subyearling - Alternative 5 / Page 32
Table C-4c. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 5 condition and worldview Technology Optimistic.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 3.05 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.12 1.12 1.45 1.45 1.67 1.67 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.12 1.12

CompH 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.41 1.90 1.49 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.82 0.75 0.57 0.45 0.47 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.63

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.24 1.24 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.30 1.30

CompH 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.41 1.24 1.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.84 0.84 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.56 0.46 0.47 0.83 0.87 0.87 0.65

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.49 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.75 0.56 0.45 0.45 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.63

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 3.02 3.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 1.41 1.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.87 0.87 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.77 0.54 0.43 0.44 0.82 0.87 0.87 0.62

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 2.90 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 1.57 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.87 0.87 0.82 0.82 0.74 0.75 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.82 0.87 0.87 0.64

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.52 0.46 0.47 0.83 0.88 0.88 0.51

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 3.12 3.12 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.57 0.39 0.40 0.83 0.88 0.88 0.52

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 2.76 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.52 0.51 0.52 0.83 0.88 0.88 0.53

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 2.49 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.83 0.88 0.88 0.57

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Subyearling - Alternative 5 / Page 33
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.71 2.56 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.15 1.15 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.15 1.15

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.79 0.63 0.63 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.81

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 2.67 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.70 0.54 0.54 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.72

Subyearling - Alternative 5 / Page 34
Table C-5a. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 6 condition and worldview Moderate.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.68 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.62 1.62 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 1.70 1.70

CompH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.70 2.30 1.80 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.83 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.69 0.59 0.30 0.14 0.31 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.40

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.56 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.49 1.49 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.93 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 1.57 1.57

CompH 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.70 1.50 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.68 0.33 0.19 0.26 0.71 0.78 0.78 0.45

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 3.56 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.49 1.49 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.93 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 1.57 1.57

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.80 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.64 0.35 0.19 0.26 0.71 0.78 0.78 0.45

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13 3.65 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.49 1.49 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.93 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 1.57 1.57

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.70 1.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.65 0.32 0.15 0.22 0.71 0.78 0.78 0.44

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.02 3.51 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.49 1.49 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.93 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 1.57 1.57

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.90 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.73 0.62 0.63 0.37 0.21 0.31 0.71 0.78 0.78 0.46

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.54 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.28 0.19 0.31 0.69 0.77 0.77 0.26

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.08 3.77 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.34 0.10 0.40 0.69 0.77 0.77 0.26

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 3.33 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.28 0.26 0.43 0.69 0.77 0.77 0.28

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11 3.01 3.26 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.64 1.64 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 1.64 1.64

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.36 0.30 0.69 0.77 0.77 0.35

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Subyearling - Alternative 6 / Page 35
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 3.10 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.39 1.39 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.39 1.39

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.75 0.67 0.42 0.56 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.68

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33 3.22 2.99 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unadj Prod 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.63 0.50 0.29 0.36 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.52

Subyearling - Alternative 6 / Page 36
Table C-5b. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 6 condition and worldview Technology Pessimistic

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.52 1.52 1.97 1.97 2.27 2.27 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.52 1.52

CompH 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.91 2.59 2.02 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.75 0.61 0.49 0.17 0.07 0.08 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.29

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.49 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.69 1.69 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 1.77 1.77

CompH 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.92 1.69 1.69 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.64 0.64 0.57 0.57 0.55 0.57 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.70 0.70 0.32

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.68 1.68 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 1.76 1.76

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 2.02 1.12 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.71 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.59 0.54 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.70 0.70 0.32

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.52 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.68 1.68 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.17 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 1.76 1.76

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 1.91 1.68 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

Unadj Prod 0.71 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.61 0.55 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.70 0.70 0.31

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.40 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.68 1.68 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 1.76 1.76

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 2.14 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

Unadj Prod 0.71 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.50 0.52 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.70 0.70 0.32

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.75 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.73 1.73 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 2.24 1.73 1.73

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.74 0.74 0.65 0.65 0.62 0.62 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.65 0.74 0.74 0.18

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.34 3.85 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.77 1.77 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 1.77 1.77

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

Unadj Prod 0.72 0.72 0.63 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.23 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.72 0.72 0.18

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02 2.02

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.49 3.55 3.55 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.74 1.74 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.74 1.74

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Unadj Prod 0.73 0.73 0.64 0.64 0.61 0.61 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.64 0.73 0.73 0.19

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.37 3.27 3.27 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.78 1.78 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.78 1.78

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

Unadj Prod 0.72 0.72 0.63 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.63 0.72 0.72 0.24

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Subyearling - Alternative 6 / Page 37
Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 3.83 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.72 1.72 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 1.72 1.72

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.22 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

Unadj Prod 0.82 0.82 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.58 0.48 0.08 0.08 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.45

Col R Priest Rapids Pool-A Hab 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.68 3.70 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 2.04 2.04 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.04 2.04

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15

Unadj Prod 0.65 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.49 0.35 0.10 0.10 0.52 0.65 0.65 0.35

Subyearling - Alternative 6 / Page 38
Table C-5c. Subyearling biological performance attribute ratings for Columbia River and Snake River mainstem habitat under 

the Alternative 6 condition and worldview Technology Optimistic.

Reach Attribute Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec W. mean

Col R Below Bonneville Dam Hab 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

to Estuary-A Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 3.05 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.12 1.12 1.45 1.45 1.67 1.67 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.12 1.12

CompH 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.41 1.90 1.49 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.82 0.75 0.56 0.45 0.47 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.63

Col R Bonneville Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.24 1.24 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.30 1.30

CompH 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.41 1.24 1.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.80 0.55 0.45 0.46 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.64

Col R The Dalles Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.56 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.24 1.24 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.30 1.30

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.49 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.77 0.57 0.45 0.46 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.64

Col R John Day Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 3.02 3.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.24 1.24 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.30 1.30

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 1.41 1.24 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.78 0.54 0.43 0.44 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.63

Col R McNary Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 2.90 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.24 1.24 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.30 1.30

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 1.57 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.75 0.76 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.64

Snake R Ice Harbor Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 2.93 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.51 0.45 0.46 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.50

Snake R Low Monumental Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55 3.12 3.12 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.56 0.39 0.39 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.50

Snake R Little Goose Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 2.76 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.51

Snake R Low Granite Pool-A Hab 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57

Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 2.49 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pred 1.35 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.35 1.35

CompH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CompO 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Unadj Prod 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.56

Columbia River Hanford Reach-A Hab 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Subyearling - Alternative 6 / Page 39
Table 2. Average monthly flows assumed for Current Potential, Historic Potential and Alternatives 2,5, and 6.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

FLOWS

Current Potential

Snake 37,760 39,610 48,407 89,043 107,245 100,156 50,913 43,643 22,655 24,054 20,928 32,456

Columbia 207,900 198,279 154,250 228,089 287,186 290,140 195,951 163,881 99,886 109,622 109,304 155,839

Mid-Col 153,594 139,802 87,457 124,301 171,988 177,453 135,133 114,599 71,728 79,317 77,075 107,495

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

FLOWS

Historic Potential

FLOWS

Snake 32,484 38,312 50,797 81,981 120,971 111,823 40,081 20,875 21,153 24,979 28,076 31,657

Columbia 82,258 93,725 117,171 213,915 415,627 465,011 251,442 133,313 92,277 82,123 83,077 85,051

Mid-Col 42,154 46,036 57,982 126,855 294,254 350,371 207,074 108,600 67,959 54,090 50,520 47,048

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Alt 2 

FLOWS

FLOWS

Snake 33,519 35,085 47,863 85,842 117,531 103,585 49,164 43,995 34,370 17,889 20,790 31,298

Columbia 162,926 166,863 168,129 235,131 310,658 322,553 212,786 174,392 127,103 95,752 103,180 149,409

Mid-Col 112,860 112,911 101,881 139,594 185,386 206,710 153,777 122,426 84,932 69,453 71,160 102,223

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Alt 5 

FLOWS

FLOWS

Snake 37,760 39,610 48,407 88,944 107,245 100,156 50,913 43,637 22,655 24,054 20,928 32,455

Columbia 183,362 185,654 150,772 237,938 290,611 291,174 205,706 176,549 100,559 110,284 108,882 158,564

Mid-Col 129,056 127,177 83,980 135,698 175,414 178,379 144,988 127,432 71,757 79,979 76,653 110,220

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

FLOWS

Alt 6 

FLOWS

Snake 39,561 40,184 48,651 89,340 106,309 100,399 48,493 40,231 20,383 24,054 21,343 33,944

Columbia 209,157 193,261 156,489 229,393 283,715 290,864 197,443 160,663 97,744 109,903 109,227 154,962 FLOWS

Mid-Col 153,050 134,211 89,452 123,627 169,397 177,841 139,030 112,812 71,859 79,598 76,583 105,129
Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00

Current- Fall (Subyearling)

FLOWS

Snake 37,760 39,610 48,407 89,043 107,245 100,156 50,913 43,643 22,655 24,054 20,928 32,456

Columbia 207,900 198,279 154,250 228,089 287,186 290,140 195,951 163,881 99,886 109,622 109,304 155,839

Mid-Col 153,594 139,802 87,457 124,301 171,988 177,453 135,133 114,599 71,728 79,317 77,075 107,495

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00

1st Res 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.72 0.68 0.32 0.52 0.46 0.69

2+ Res 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.85 0.83 0.56 0.72 0.68 0.83

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00

1st Res 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.68 0.62 0.35 0.49 0.43 0.67

2+ Res 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.83 0.79 0.59 0.70 0.66 0.82

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.00

1st Res 0.78 0.79 0.82 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.76 0.59 0.43 0.58 0.52 0.73

2+ Res 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.77 0.66 0.76 0.72 0.86

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.76 0.77 0.80 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.72 0.63 0.35 0.54 0.49 0.71

2+ Res 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.85 0.79 0.59 0.74 0.70 0.84

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.94 0.93 0.88 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.86 0.79 0.86 0.87 0.91

2+ Res 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.95

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.92 0.91 0.83 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.81 0.72 0.82 0.83 0.88

2+ Res 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.91 0.94

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.91 0.94

2+ Res 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.97

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.74 0.83 0.84 0.89

2+ Res 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.92 0.94

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.92 0.94

2+ Res 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.97

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00

1st ResSn 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.87 0.73 0.83 0.80 0.90

2+ResSna 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.91 0.90 0.95

1st Res C 0.75 0.76 0.79 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.73 0.62 0.33 0.53 0.47 0.70

2+ Res Co 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.79 0.57 0.73 0.69 0.84

1st ResMi 0.79 0.80 0.83 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.77 0.68 0.40 0.59 0.54 0.74

2+ResMid 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.73 0.86

1stHanfor 0.72 0.73 0.78 0.89 0.91 0.89 0.76 0.64 0.35 0.50 0.42 0.66

2+Hanford 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.87 0.80 0.59 0.70 0.65 0.81

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.65 0.63 0.49 0.65 0.72 0.71 0.46 0.26 0.08 0.31 0.34 0.53

2+ Res 0.80 0.79 0.70 0.81 0.85 0.84 0.68 0.51 0.29 0.55 0.58 0.73

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.87 0.86 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.78 0.67 0.47 0.69 0.71 0.82

2+ Res 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.82 0.69 0.83 0.84 0.90

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.76 0.75 0.64 0.76 0.82 0.82 0.63 0.47 0.25 0.48 0.51 0.67

2+ Res 0.87 0.86 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.79 0.69 0.50 0.69 0.71 0.82

BON TDA JDA MCN PRD WAN RIS RRC WEL IHR LMO LGS LGR

FLOWS
Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00

Template-Fall

FLOWS

Snake 32,484 38,312 50,797 81,981 120,971 111,823 40,081 20,875 21,153 24,979 28,076 31,657

Columbia 82,258 93,725 117,171 213,915 415,627 465,011 251,442 133,313 92,277 82,123 83,077 85,051

Mid-Col 42,154 46,036 57,982 126,855 294,254 350,371 207,074 108,600 67,959 54,090 50,520 47,048

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.88 0.71 0.68 0.83 0.86 0.88

2+ Res 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.84 0.82 0.91 0.93 0.94

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.87 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.86 0.66 0.72 0.82 0.85 0.87

2+ Res 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.81 0.85 0.90 0.92 0.93

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.90 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.71 0.78 0.86 0.88 0.89

2+ Res 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.84 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.95

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.87 0.67 0.72 0.85 0.87 0.89

2+ Res 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.82 0.85 0.92 0.93 0.94

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91

2+ Res 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88

2+ Res 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.94

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94

2+ Res 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89

2+ Res 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94

2+ Res 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st ResSn 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.89 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.96

2+ResSna 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98

1st Res C 0.88 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.88 0.68 0.71 0.84 0.86 0.88

2+ Res Co 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.82 0.84 0.92 0.93 0.94

1st ResMi 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.90 0.72 0.76 0.87 0.89 0.90

2+ResMid 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.85 0.87 0.93 0.94 0.95

1stHanfor 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.86 0.66 0.70 0.79 0.82 0.85

2+Hanford 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.81 0.84 0.89 0.91 0.92

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.60 0.65 0.72 0.85 0.92 0.93 0.83 0.61 0.48 0.59 0.61 0.62

2+ Res 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.78 0.69 0.77 0.78 0.79

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.94 0.85 0.79 0.85 0.85 0.86

2+ Res 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.92 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.93

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.90 0.74 0.65 0.73 0.74 0.75

2+ Res 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.86 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.87

FLOWS LGR LGS LMO IHR WEL RRC RIS WAN PRD MCN JDA TDA BON
Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00

Alt 2 Fall -- Tribal

FLOWS

Snake 33,519 35,085 47,863 85,842 117,531 103,585 49,164 43,995 34,370 17,889 20,790 31,298

Columbia 162,926 166,863 168,129 235,131 310,658 322,553 212,786 174,392 127,103 95,752 103,180 149,409

Mid-Col 112,860 112,911 101,881 139,594 185,386 206,710 153,777 122,426 84,932 69,453 71,160 102,223

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.88 0.84 0.75 0.73 0.79 0.87

2+ Res 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.92 0.87 0.86 0.89 0.93

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.79 0.80 0.71 0.77 0.86

2+ Res 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.89 0.90 0.84 0.88 0.93

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.77 0.85 0.77 0.82 0.89

2+ Res 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.90 0.94

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.88 0.89 0.92 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.89 0.78 0.79 0.75 0.80 0.87

2+ Res 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.88 0.89 0.86 0.89 0.94

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.94

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95

2+ Res 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.94

2+ Res 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.97

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97

2+ Res 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.94

2+ Res 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97

2+ Res 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99

at Dam 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st ResSn 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.96

2+ResSna 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.98

1st Res C 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.87 0.82 0.80 0.71 0.78 0.86

2+ Res Co 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.91 0.89 0.84 0.88 0.93

1st ResMi 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.90 0.85 0.83 0.76 0.81 0.88

2+ResMid 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.91 0.87 0.90 0.94

1stHanfor 0.85 0.86 0.89 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.88 0.84 0.81 0.69 0.75 0.84

2+Hanford 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.90 0.83 0.86 0.92

at Dam 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.85 0.89 0.88 0.77 0.63 0.55 0.63 0.67 0.77

2+ Res 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.87 0.79 0.74 0.79 0.82 0.88

at Dam 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.85 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.91

2+ Res 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.96

at Dam 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.83 0.75 0.69 0.74 0.78 0.85

2+ Res 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.87 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.92

FLOWS LGR LGS LMO IHR WEL RRC RIS WAN PRD MCN JDA TDA BON
Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00

Alt 5 Fall -- BiOp w/ IRCs

FLOWS

Snake 37,760 39,610 48,407 88,944 107,245 100,156 50,913 43,637 22,655 24,054 20,928 32,455

Columbia 183,362 185,654 150,772 237,938 290,611 291,174 205,706 176,549 100,559 110,284 108,882 158,564

Mid-Col 129,056 127,177 83,980 135,698 175,414 178,379 144,988 127,432 71,757 79,979 76,653 110,220

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.00

1st Res 0.76 0.77 0.80 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.73 0.69 0.33 0.54 0.48 0.71

2+ Res 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.85 0.83 0.58 0.74 0.69 0.84

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00

1st Res 0.74 0.75 0.79 0.89 0.91 0.90 0.69 0.63 0.37 0.51 0.45 0.68

2+ Res 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.83 0.79 0.60 0.72 0.67 0.83

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.00

1st Res 0.79 0.80 0.83 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.77 0.60 0.45 0.60 0.54 0.75

2+ Res 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.77 0.67 0.77 0.73 0.86

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.77 0.78 0.81 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.73 0.63 0.36 0.56 0.50 0.72

2+ Res 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.79 0.60 0.75 0.71 0.85

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.94

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.88 0.80 0.87 0.87 0.91

2+ Res 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.96

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.90 0.90 0.83 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.84 0.73 0.82 0.83 0.88

2+ Res 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.94

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.94

2+ Res 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.97

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.85 0.75 0.84 0.84 0.89

2+ Res 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.95

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.95

2+ Res 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.97

at Dam 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.00

1st ResSn 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.91 0.87 0.74 0.84 0.81 0.91

2+ResSna 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.93 0.86 0.92 0.90 0.95

1st Res C 0.76 0.77 0.80 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.74 0.63 0.34 0.55 0.48 0.71

2+ Res Co 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.86 0.79 0.58 0.74 0.69 0.84

1st ResMi 0.79 0.81 0.84 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.78 0.68 0.41 0.61 0.55 0.75

2+ResMid 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.83 0.64 0.78 0.74 0.87

1stHanfor 0.72 0.73 0.78 0.89 0.91 0.89 0.76 0.64 0.35 0.50 0.42 0.66

2+Hanford 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.87 0.80 0.59 0.70 0.65 0.81

at Dam 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.61 0.61 0.50 0.68 0.73 0.72 0.48 0.31 0.09 0.33 0.35 0.55

2+ Res 0.78 0.78 0.71 0.82 0.86 0.85 0.69 0.55 0.30 0.57 0.59 0.74

at Dam 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.96

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.49 0.70 0.71 0.82

2+ Res 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.84 0.70 0.84 0.85 0.91

at Dam 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.94

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.74 0.74 0.66 0.79 0.83 0.83 0.66 0.52 0.27 0.52 0.54 0.70

2+ Res 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.72 0.52 0.72 0.73 0.84

FLOWS LGR LGS LMO IHR WEL RRC RIS WAN PRD MCN JDA TDA BON
Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00

Alt 6 Fall --Summer flow shif

FLOWS

Snake 39,561 40,184 48,651 89,340 106,309 100,399 48,493 40,231 20,383 24,054 21,343 33,944

Columbia 209,157 193,261 156,489 229,393 283,715 290,864 197,443 160,663 97,744 109,903 109,227 154,962

Mid-Col 153,050 134,211 89,452 123,627 169,397 177,841 139,030 112,812 71,859 79,598 76,583 105,129

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00

1st Res 0.76 0.77 0.80 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.71 0.66 0.25 0.53 0.48 0.71

2+ Res 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.84 0.81 0.50 0.73 0.70 0.85

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00

1st Res 0.74 0.75 0.78 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.67 0.59 0.28 0.50 0.45 0.69

2+ Res 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.82 0.77 0.53 0.71 0.67 0.83

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.00

1st Res 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.75 0.56 0.37 0.59 0.54 0.75

2+ Res 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.75 0.61 0.77 0.74 0.87

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.71 0.60 0.28 0.56 0.51 0.73

2+ Res 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.84 0.77 0.53 0.75 0.71 0.85

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.94 0.93 0.88 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.86 0.79 0.86 0.87 0.91

2+ Res 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.95

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.92 0.90 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.81 0.72 0.82 0.82 0.88

2+ Res 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.91 0.94

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.90 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.94

2+ Res 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.97

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.75 0.83 0.84 0.89

2+ Res 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.92 0.94

at Dam 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.92 0.94

2+ Res 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.97

at Dam 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.00

1st ResSn 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.85 0.68 0.84 0.81 0.91

2+ResSna 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.83 0.91 0.90 0.95

1st Res C 0.77 0.77 0.81 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.73 0.60 0.27 0.55 0.49 0.72

2+ Res Co 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.77 0.52 0.74 0.70 0.85

1st ResMi 0.81 0.81 0.84 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.77 0.65 0.34 0.61 0.56 0.76

2+ResMid 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.81 0.58 0.78 0.75 0.87

1stHanfor 0.73 0.74 0.78 0.89 0.91 0.89 0.74 0.60 0.28 0.50 0.44 0.68

2+Hanford 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.86 0.78 0.53 0.70 0.66 0.82

at Dam 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.66 0.63 0.52 0.67 0.73 0.72 0.46 0.26 0.08 0.33 0.35 0.53

2+ Res 0.81 0.79 0.72 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.68 0.51 0.29 0.57 0.59 0.73

at Dam 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.88 0.86 0.81 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.79 0.67 0.48 0.70 0.72 0.82

2+ Res 0.94 0.93 0.90 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.82 0.69 0.84 0.85 0.91

at Dam 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95

%Transp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st Res 0.77 0.75 0.67 0.78 0.82 0.83 0.64 0.48 0.25 0.52 0.54 0.69

2+ Res 0.88 0.86 0.82 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.80 0.69 0.50 0.72 0.73 0.83

FLOWS LGR LGS LMO IHR WEL RRC JDA TDA BON RIS WAN PRD MCN
Natural (unregulated with no irrigation) flows for Columbia River at The Dalles, OR, 1879-1978

Data from Michael Newsom, NMFS, Dec. 1995 Obtained from Jim Ruff, Sept 1999

 Water Annual

 Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Average

1879 89730 83300 90960 65810 86990 181400 360500 395900 612900 501700 184400 154500 234010

1880 109900 85190 85360 98310 76970 75600 151500 404900 698900 793900 275500 198700 254560

1881 130900 103700 80650 106900 210700 221500 386600 427200 547200 432100 386600 141800 264650

1882 109900 111700 86340 78260 66350 96200 229700 337400 771400 478300 244700 150900 230100

1883 109900 94020 120900 86940 87100 178700 197900 405700 535700 398500 263800 127100 217190

1884 90640 73870 73420 71710 71440 105800 204000 405900 649900 404700 202900 167200 210120

1885 132800 134500 80500 93190 163500 189900 260100 374100 447200 341900 256100 156400 219180

1886 121800 102500 102900 92170 177400 123000 210300 344400 579400 353100 204200 126500 211470

1887 85680 69110 75180 98840 74660 177100 260400 424600 811600 587300 202300 172600 253280

1888 113800 99350 99070 69420 143300 121200 190500 364800 517900 340500 290400 154800 208750

1889 101700 92500 85360 66100 62950 90010 153600 257100 271100 185600 214500 98290 139900

1890 87220 76640 64450 51070 116200 121400 193800 562300 440400 329000 150700 123200 193030

1891 88780 76740 69430 65530 61680 75310 139000 345800 423800 309400 195900 134400 165480

1892 87940 107000 99610 78580 71960 128800 155200 302200 548300 450700 207100 147700 198760

1893 110600 97130 85790 77240 80750 73000 172500 445700 601700 469100 212300 152900 214890

1894 121600 140800 165800 144500 112700 165200 325700 585100 1007000 557600 275600 178200 314980

1895 132500 134700 113700 101400 92630 121400 185000 381600 386700 352800 273800 132500 200730

1896 95980 77210 75030 89700 91120 136600 183200 274100 685100 644200 209000 160700 226830

1897 88740 120500 162700 114400 121400 111800 302500 630500 546600 377600 259300 141000 248090

1898 96500 112400 140700 112300 145300 150000 204700 427000 610100 404900 213500 147200 230380

1899 96760 81900 68170 97770 96180 109200 195900 316400 645500 620300 240700 197500 230520

1900 139300 128200 156600 167200 123100 190400 276200 457900 419000 329800 310900 140900 236630

1901 113300 123000 137600 128200 119900 190600 169500 437500 524600 347300 191300 137200 218330

1902 85010 81800 92090 87400 98750 113900 147900 367200 546300 414800 223600 130600 199110

1903 82760 82560 84360 116000 85300 101600 196200 318100 692100 436100 235900 155200 215520

1904 153900 130300 121100 99330 97490 171500 343700 518900 569200 405400 220600 128500 246660

1905 83860 70160 71120 65340 60320 110200 137500 216800 368000 255800 205600 102300 145580

1906 101700 76530 66720 62490 73700 97600 208400 312000 343200 288800 181100 122300 161210

1907 90500 133300 123500 102300 155600 172200 240300 392300 545800 442000 174300 169400 228460

1908 114300 84630 87670 74150 62980 120700 192300 356500 550800 426600 237000 129000 203050

1909 88820 84290 77190 77420 99860 113600 157600 246100 606800 438900 211000 137600 194930

1910 98330 123600 138400 107500 87520 276600 331300 506600 414200 253400 212200 102300 221000

1911 99360 117100 111300 77000 74810 110000 161800 320400 521700 394800 169700 129600 190630

1912 82170 73450 68500 79120 104500 89180 187000 389600 540700 322900 197700 138200 189420

1913 86240 88040 78400 72280 72560 104400 235700 395600 711000 411700 191500 151900 216610

Natural Flows / Page 6
1914 106600 95190 81400 93660 84940 155700 224900 393900 443500 334200 222100 121300 196450

1915 102100 112900 90140 69340 66590 90580 174900 272500 286500 243100 181400 135000 152090

1916 74710 78760 84150 70100 127000 205400 276000 405600 559100 609200 198000 165300 237780

1917 99710 78860 72710 63580 62190 77760 187200 413000 675100 500000 282900 135300 220690

Natural Flows / Page 7
1918 98410 71110 132700 203600 133100 135400 216000 359700 503600 361100 218600 134400 213980

1919 100500 78820 72800 80630 85490 113800 222800 358300 424300 309900 196200 123500 180590

1920 69550 59210 64040 76200 70710 85250 128700 270400 389100 397000 183700 133900 160650

1921 129700 104700 96610 119300 125200 200900 231300 470700 682500 373900 230700 123600 240760

1922 83740 92890 119200 77600 68140 95820 173500 352400 597600 322400 196100 133600 192750

1923 84390 70360 68550 101500 68960 91810 185200 343500 528700 378400 173300 135000 185810

1924 84330 67050 72670 65280 108900 104900 113800 318700 322400 215800 188900 117400 148340

1925 71830 78750 76700 92520 148000 139500 274500 495900 494600 337600 147300 119600 206400

1926 81850 65320 71850 64080 83180 106700 152800 263800 216800 189700 182800 106200 132090

1927 82760 94910 117800 97450 114900 128600 161600 345100 622100 429200 122200 170400 207250

1928 151000 195700 181200 148700 115500 174200 216200 516000 535800 334300 207400 117100 241090

1929 84700 72270 62530 54170 49340 95350 116200 238200 411000 249600 191800 107500 144390

1930 64920 53760 59520 44800 76540 85100 158100 274400 325600 257100 150600 115200 138800

1931 72950 56610 55470 51320 50420 84340 143800 271100 304300 220400 164300 113400 132370

1932 67940 60050 57230 58320 55190 164600 249300 458200 514500 339200 142100 127700 191190

1933 75310 84150 91950 87010 64230 101600 169700 330300 630900 469800 182300 147100 202860

1934 100300 130700 193300 209700 147900 169300 308900 446200 406600 247400 229100 118100 225630

1935 71990 87480 93230 82830 93810 107500 159900 312300 462700 348400 164400 127200 175980

1936 73790 56720 53040 57760 48870 96500 222300 448100 451900 244800 205900 113500 172770

1937 65670 48730 48930 38630 42290 78220 129500 269200 384900 278500 153300 115000 137740

1938 70970 80630 95430 90040 80340 143000 247100 428200 535600 353100 160300 118800 200290

1939 88010 66250 64190 60590 55390 115700 196400 365500 356600 264100 165700 117400 159650

1940 71420 74670 75480 67890 76010 144000 219000 334700 354700 239300 174700 124900 163060

1941 92660 85230 76460 72250 68600 109900 166900 276600 324400 224700 152600 137400 148980

1942 119100 111800 142200 105500 94670 104200 214600 326700 438900 327100 148800 126500 188340

1943 77200 74800 93100 95900 99810 133300 338400 406800 508500 436600 201100 125600 215930

1944 82100 70030 65480 53350 52370 77040 121900 235400 330400 217200 231000 115600 137660

1945 78880 68660 57390 66580 76580 96360 133600 326600 465300 295200 146900 114600 160550

1946 72010 75470 84980 98080 72620 140100 251400 481500 538800 343300 160300 135900 204540

1947 90730 83830 136300 94150 102500 138300 210300 469900 512800 315700 189700 127000 205930

1948 116500 125800 110400 106000 93980 109600 201400 517300 838800 400300 182300 156000 246530

1949 95780 77840 74780 59290 90790 163500 241300 517100 470600 234800 200000 120200 195500

1950 79450 75330 91480 74340 102200 167000 229400 363000 641600 537100 160000 147900 222400

1951 103800 120800 137400 138800 168000 171100 263900 498100 523300 376100 240800 135400 239790

1952 113400 102000 100000 83860 97160 130900 310100 512700 495500 319700 226400 119400 217590

1953 73210 52840 55540 96720 113200 119900 166200 339400 581600 401100 183700 138100 193460

1954 89340 79660 89890 83100 98490 124900 188100 410500 573900 487100 206000 180200 217600

1955 105300 92300 92580 73080 61930 84900 140400 291600 524900 474300 275100 136900 196110

1956 92690 108500 151300 139100 91270 161100 319800 598200 699600 383300 227400 137400 259140

1957 98200 82170 92900 68640 78570 160200 208300 582100 580700 266300 199800 121500 211620

1958 83000 66100 74840 72840 119500 136600 223500 491500 541300 261800 156400 125500 196070

Natural Flows / Page 8
1959 92590 97210 119800 129400 105200 127900 208300 400500 596000 450500 160100 170400 221490

1960 163900 146500 132300 85040 89570 139200 255000 359700 467800 365000 211800 128300 212010

1961 86880 84290 74800 66470 128100 158600 185200 407100 654900 328300 192200 124000 207570

1962 79580 68400 68750 70190 83290 112300 228700 371100 487100 318500 159400 133000 181690

Natural Flows / Page 9
1963 98420 95340 117000 85160 130200 133100 177300 341400 464600 316800 193700 136000 190750

1964 82470 69200 70750 62700 57530 92500 163900 334100 655600 455000 180400 139700 196990

1965 111200 87710 156600 146900 163900 164800 269100 447200 587600 380000 209500 148900 239450

1966 94230 85550 85320 79080 69100 116900 191800 336500 427800 328900 208000 120500 178640

1967 77230 68550 88470 96240 90810 116300 142200 347500 674400 465700 190500 135500 207780

1968 87370 85580 87530 82770 124800 154800 149300 293200 472000 366000 201300 157700 188530

1969 108900 108200 103300 122700 98560 143800 324700 553200 532900 326800 195200 121700 228330

1970 91000 70120 71690 108100 102700 122500 140000 341800 544100 323500 161800 118700 183000

1971 79670 71160 80940 122500 148300 165200 246500 570800 686700 405100 158400 143100 239860

1972 95080 78710 83860 98370 119300 294100 278300 513100 779700 481800 213400 151500 265600

1973 94470 75420 87380 91060 69180 113200 130700 275400 343100 251500 226800 105300 155290

1974 67300 91460 139600 194100 161200 193300 317400 479200 781700 534700 148700 145000 271140

1975 72930 59630 71520 81670 80060 136500 179400 392600 607000 448200 224300 136900 207560

1976 99820 103300 169100 143500 107600 143800 270800 522500 528900 384400 205700 196400 239650

1977 97180 66540 62900 53490 47700 75110 111900 220200 284800 195300 286400 119400 135080

1978 65500 57310 127900 96150 85610 155500 248400 384800 490600 371300 136900 201820

1894 121600 140800 165800 144500 112700 165200 325700 585100 1007000 557600 275600 178200 314980

Maximum 163900 195700 193300 209700 210700 294100 386600 630500 1007000 793900 386600 198700 314980

Average 94610 89120 95200 91000 95760 131950 210560 389410 527710 371480 202950 136260 203050

Minimum 64920 48730 48930 38630 42290 73000 111900 216800 216800 185600 122200 98290 132090

1926 81850 65320 71850 64080 83180 106700 152800 263800 216800 189700 182800 106200 132090

Natural Flows / Page 10
Table 2. Natural (unregulated with no irrigation) flows for Columbia River at The Dalles, OR, 1879-1978.

Data from Michael Newsom, NMFS, Dec. 1995. Obtained from Jim Ruff, Sept 1999.

 Water Annual

 Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Average

1879 89730 83300 90960 65810 86990 181400 360500 395900 612900 501700 184400 154500 234010

1880 109900 85190 85360 98310 76970 75600 151500 404900 698900 793900 275500 198700 254560

1881 130900 103700 80650 106900 210700 221500 386600 427200 547200 432100 386600 141800 264650

1882 109900 111700 86340 78260 66350 96200 229700 337400 771400 478300 244700 150900 230100

1883 109900 94020 120900 86940 87100 178700 197900 405700 535700 398500 263800 127100 217190

1884 90640 73870 73420 71710 71440 105800 204000 405900 649900 404700 202900 167200 210120

1885 132800 134500 80500 93190 163500 189900 260100 374100 447200 341900 256100 156400 219180

1886 121800 102500 102900 92170 177400 123000 210300 344400 579400 353100 204200 126500 211470

1887 85680 69110 75180 98840 74660 177100 260400 424600 811600 587300 202300 172600 253280

1888 113800 99350 99070 69420 143300 121200 190500 364800 517900 340500 290400 154800 208750

1889 101700 92500 85360 66100 62950 90010 153600 257100 271100 185600 214500 98290 139900

1890 87220 76640 64450 51070 116200 121400 193800 562300 440400 329000 150700 123200 193030

1891 88780 76740 69430 65530 61680 75310 139000 345800 423800 309400 195900 134400 165480

1892 87940 107000 99610 78580 71960 128800 155200 302200 548300 450700 207100 147700 198760

1893 110600 97130 85790 77240 80750 73000 172500 445700 601700 469100 212300 152900 214890

1894 121600 140800 165800 144500 112700 165200 325700 585100 1007000 557600 275600 178200 314980

1895 132500 134700 113700 101400 92630 121400 185000 381600 386700 352800 273800 132500 200730

1896 95980 77210 75030 89700 91120 136600 183200 274100 685100 644200 209000 160700 226830

1897 88740 120500 162700 114400 121400 111800 302500 630500 546600 377600 259300 141000 248090

1898 96500 112400 140700 112300 145300 150000 204700 427000 610100 404900 213500 147200 230380

1899 96760 81900 68170 97770 96180 109200 195900 316400 645500 620300 240700 197500 230520

1900 139300 128200 156600 167200 123100 190400 276200 457900 419000 329800 310900 140900 236630

1901 113300 123000 137600 128200 119900 190600 169500 437500 524600 347300 191300 137200 218330

1902 85010 81800 92090 87400 98750 113900 147900 367200 546300 414800 223600 130600 199110

1903 82760 82560 84360 116000 85300 101600 196200 318100 692100 436100 235900 155200 215520

1904 153900 130300 121100 99330 97490 171500 343700 518900 569200 405400 220600 128500 246660

1905 83860 70160 71120 65340 60320 110200 137500 216800 368000 255800 205600 102300 145580

1906 101700 76530 66720 62490 73700 97600 208400 312000 343200 288800 181100 122300 161210

1907 90500 133300 123500 102300 155600 172200 240300 392300 545800 442000 174300 169400 228460

1908 114300 84630 87670 74150 62980 120700 192300 356500 550800 426600 237000 129000 203050

1909 88820 84290 77190 77420 99860 113600 157600 246100 606800 438900 211000 137600 194930

1910 98330 123600 138400 107500 87520 276600 331300 506600 414200 253400 212200 102300 221000

1911 99360 117100 111300 77000 74810 110000 161800 320400 521700 394800 169700 129600 190630

1912 82170 73450 68500 79120 104500 89180 187000 389600 540700 322900 197700 138200 189420

1913 86240 88040 78400 72280 72560 104400 235700 395600 711000 411700 191500 151900 216610

1914 106600 95190 81400 93660 84940 155700 224900 393900 443500 334200 222100 121300 196450

1915 102100 112900 90140 69340 66590 90580 174900 272500 286500 243100 181400 135000 152090

1916 74710 78760 84150 70100 127000 205400 276000 405600 559100 609200 198000 165300 237780

1917 99710 78860 72710 63580 62190 77760 187200 413000 675100 500000 282900 135300 220690

Natural Flows / Page 1
Table 2. Natural (unregulated with no irrigation) flows for Columbia River at The Dalles, OR, 1879-1978.

Data from Michael Newsom, NMFS, Dec. 1995. Obtained from Jim Ruff, Sept 1999.

 Water Annual

 Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Average

1918 98410 71110 132700 203600 133100 135400 216000 359700 503600 361100 218600 134400 213980

1919 100500 78820 72800 80630 85490 113800 222800 358300 424300 309900 196200 123500 180590

1920 69550 59210 64040 76200 70710 85250 128700 270400 389100 397000 183700 133900 160650

1921 129700 104700 96610 119300 125200 200900 231300 470700 682500 373900 230700 123600 240760

1922 83740 92890 119200 77600 68140 95820 173500 352400 597600 322400 196100 133600 192750

1923 84390 70360 68550 101500 68960 91810 185200 343500 528700 378400 173300 135000 185810

1924 84330 67050 72670 65280 108900 104900 113800 318700 322400 215800 188900 117400 148340

1925 71830 78750 76700 92520 148000 139500 274500 495900 494600 337600 147300 119600 206400

1926 81850 65320 71850 64080 83180 106700 152800 263800 216800 189700 182800 106200 132090

1927 82760 94910 117800 97450 114900 128600 161600 345100 622100 429200 122200 170400 207250

1928 151000 195700 181200 148700 115500 174200 216200 516000 535800 334300 207400 117100 241090

1929 84700 72270 62530 54170 49340 95350 116200 238200 411000 249600 191800 107500 144390

1930 64920 53760 59520 44800 76540 85100 158100 274400 325600 257100 150600 115200 138800

1931 72950 56610 55470 51320 50420 84340 143800 271100 304300 220400 164300 113400 132370

1932 67940 60050 57230 58320 55190 164600 249300 458200 514500 339200 142100 127700 191190

1933 75310 84150 91950 87010 64230 101600 169700 330300 630900 469800 182300 147100 202860

1934 100300 130700 193300 209700 147900 169300 308900 446200 406600 247400 229100 118100 225630

1935 71990 87480 93230 82830 93810 107500 159900 312300 462700 348400 164400 127200 175980

1936 73790 56720 53040 57760 48870 96500 222300 448100 451900 244800 205900 113500 172770

1937 65670 48730 48930 38630 42290 78220 129500 269200 384900 278500 153300 115000 137740

1938 70970 80630 95430 90040 80340 143000 247100 428200 535600 353100 160300 118800 200290

1939 88010 66250 64190 60590 55390 115700 196400 365500 356600 264100 165700 117400 159650

1940 71420 74670 75480 67890 76010 144000 219000 334700 354700 239300 174700 124900 163060

1941 92660 85230 76460 72250 68600 109900 166900 276600 324400 224700 152600 137400 148980

1942 119100 111800 142200 105500 94670 104200 214600 326700 438900 327100 148800 126500 188340

1943 77200 74800 93100 95900 99810 133300 338400 406800 508500 436600 201100 125600 215930

1944 82100 70030 65480 53350 52370 77040 121900 235400 330400 217200 231000 115600 137660

1945 78880 68660 57390 66580 76580 96360 133600 326600 465300 295200 146900 114600 160550

1946 72010 75470 84980 98080 72620 140100 251400 481500 538800 343300 160300 135900 204540

1947 90730 83830 136300 94150 102500 138300 210300 469900 512800 315700 189700 127000 205930

1948 116500 125800 110400 106000 93980 109600 201400 517300 838800 400300 182300 156000 246530

1949 95780 77840 74780 59290 90790 163500 241300 517100 470600 234800 200000 120200 195500

1950 79450 75330 91480 74340 102200 167000 229400 363000 641600 537100 160000 147900 222400

1951 103800 120800 137400 138800 168000 171100 263900 498100 523300 376100 240800 135400 239790

1952 113400 102000 100000 83860 97160 130900 310100 512700 495500 319700 226400 119400 217590

1953 73210 52840 55540 96720 113200 119900 166200 339400 581600 401100 183700 138100 193460

1954 89340 79660 89890 83100 98490 124900 188100 410500 573900 487100 206000 180200 217600

1955 105300 92300 92580 73080 61930 84900 140400 291600 524900 474300 275100 136900 196110

1956 92690 108500 151300 139100 91270 161100 319800 598200 699600 383300 227400 137400 259140

1957 98200 82170 92900 68640 78570 160200 208300 582100 580700 266300 199800 121500 211620

1958 83000 66100 74840 72840 119500 136600 223500 491500 541300 261800 156400 125500 196070

1959 92590 97210 119800 129400 105200 127900 208300 400500 596000 450500 160100 170400 221490

1960 163900 146500 132300 85040 89570 139200 255000 359700 467800 365000 211800 128300 212010

1961 86880 84290 74800 66470 128100 158600 185200 407100 654900 328300 192200 124000 207570

1962 79580 68400 68750 70190 83290 112300 228700 371100 487100 318500 159400 133000 181690

Natural Flows / Page 2
Table 2. Natural (unregulated with no irrigation) flows for Columbia River at The Dalles, OR, 1879-1978.

Data from Michael Newsom, NMFS, Dec. 1995. Obtained from Jim Ruff, Sept 1999.

 Water Annual

 Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Average

1963 98420 95340 117000 85160 130200 133100 177300 341400 464600 316800 193700 136000 190750

1964 82470 69200 70750 62700 57530 92500 163900 334100 655600 455000 180400 139700 196990

1965 111200 87710 156600 146900 163900 164800 269100 447200 587600 380000 209500 148900 239450

1966 94230 85550 85320 79080 69100 116900 191800 336500 427800 328900 208000 120500 178640

1967 77230 68550 88470 96240 90810 116300 142200 347500 674400 465700 190500 135500 207780

1968 87370 85580 87530 82770 124800 154800 149300 293200 472000 366000 201300 157700 188530

1969 108900 108200 103300 122700 98560 143800 324700 553200 532900 326800 195200 121700 228330

1970 91000 70120 71690 108100 102700 122500 140000 341800 544100 323500 161800 118700 183000

1971 79670 71160 80940 122500 148300 165200 246500 570800 686700 405100 158400 143100 239860

1972 95080 78710 83860 98370 119300 294100 278300 513100 779700 481800 213400 151500 265600

1973 94470 75420 87380 91060 69180 113200 130700 275400 343100 251500 226800 105300 155290

1974 67300 91460 139600 194100 161200 193300 317400 479200 781700 534700 148700 145000 271140

1975 72930 59630 71520 81670 80060 136500 179400 392600 607000 448200 224300 136900 207560

1976 99820 103300 169100 143500 107600 143800 270800 522500 528900 384400 205700 196400 239650

1977 97180 66540 62900 53490 47700 75110 111900 220200 284800 195300 286400 119400 135080

1978 65500 57310 127900 96150 85610 155500 248400 384800 490600 371300 136900 201820

1894 121600 140800 165800 144500 112700 165200 325700 585100 1007000 557600 275600 178200 314980

Maximum 163900 195700 193300 209700 210700 294100 386600 630500 1007000 793900 386600 198700 314980

Average 94610 89120 95200 91000 95760 131950 210560 389410 527710 371480 202950 136260 203050

Minimum 64920 48730 48930 38630 42290 73000 111900 216800 216800 185600 122200 98290 132090

1926 81850 65320 71850 64080 83180 106700 152800 263800 216800 189700 182800 106200 132090

Natural Flows / Page 3
Table E-1a,b,c. Subyearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for the 

Current condition and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.94 0 94 0.93 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

The Dalles 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90 0 90 0.90

Bonneville 0.90 0 90 0.91 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 91 0.91 0 90 0.90

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.94 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.86 0 87 0.89 0 95 0.96 0.95 0 85 0.83 0 56 0.72 0 68 0.83

Little Goose 0.85 0 86 0.88 0 94 0.95 0.95 0 83 0.79 0 59 0.70 0 66 0.82

Lower Monumental 0.88 0 89 0.91 0 95 0.96 0.96 0 87 0.77 0 66 0.76 0.72 0.86

Ice Harbor 0.87 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0.95 0 85 0.79 0 59 0.74 0.70 0.84

McNary 0.83 0 87 0.89 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 86 0.79 0 57 0.73 0 69 0.84

John Day 0.80 0.79 0.70 0 81 0.85 0.84 0 68 0.51 0 29 0.55 0 58 0.73

The Dalles 0.93 0 93 0.89 0 93 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.82 0 69 0.83 0 84 0.90

Bonneville 0.87 0 86 0.80 0 87 0.90 0.91 0.79 0.69 0 50 0.69 0.71 0.82

Rocky Reach 0.96 0 95 0.91 0 94 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.90 0 85 0.90 0 91 0.94

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.95 0 92 0.95 0 95 0.97

Wanapum 0.96 0 96 0.92 0 95 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.91 0 86 0.91 0 92 0.94

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.95 0 93 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wells 0.97 0 97 0.94 0 96 0.97 0.97 0 95 0.93 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.95

Hanford Reach 0.85 0 86 0.88 0 94 0.95 0.95 0 87 0.80 0 59 0.70 0 65 0.81

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.94 0 94 0.93 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

The Dalles 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90 0 90 0.90

Bonneville 0.90 0 90 0.91 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 91 0.91 0 90 0.90

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.94 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.86 0 86 0.88 0 94 0.95 0.95 0 82 0.80 0 55 0.70 0 67 0.82

Little Goose 0.85 0 85 0.87 0 94 0.95 0.94 0 80 0.75 0.46 0.69 0 64 0.81

Lower Monumental 0.88 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0.96 0 85 0.74 0.44 0.74 0.71 0.85

Ice Harbor 0.87 0 87 0.89 0 95 0.96 0.95 0 83 0.75 0.46 0.72 0 69 0.84

McNary 0.82 0 86 0.88 0 94 0.95 0.94 0 82 0.70 0 38 0.70 0 66 0.82

John Day 0.79 0.78 0.67 0.79 0.83 0.83 0 60 0.41 0.15 0.52 0 56 0.71

The Dalles 0.93 0 92 0.88 0 93 0.94 0.94 0 85 0.76 0 55 0.81 0 83 0.90

Bonneville 0.86 0 85 0.78 0 86 0.89 0.90 0.73 0.59 0 33 0.66 0 69 0.80

Rocky Reach 0.95 0 95 0.90 0 93 0.95 0.95 0 92 0.86 0.77 0.89 0 90 0.93

Rock Island 0.98 0 97 0.95 0 97 0.98 0.98 0 96 0.93 0 88 0.94 0 95 0.97

Wanapum 0.96 0 95 0.91 0 94 0.96 0.96 0 93 0.87 0.79 0.90 0 91 0.94

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.95 0 97 0.98 0.98 0 96 0.93 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.97

Wells 0.97 0 96 0.93 0 95 0.97 0.97 0 94 0.90 0 83 0.92 0 93 0.95

Hanford Reach 0.84 0 85 0.87 0 93 0.95 0.94 0 84 0.66 0 32 0.68 0 63 0.80

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.94 0 94 0.93 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

The Dalles 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90 0 90 0.90

Bonneville 0.90 0 90 0.91 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 91 0.91 0 90 0.90

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.94 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.87 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0.96 0 88 0.86 0 67 0.75 0.70 0.85

Little Goose 0.86 0 87 0.89 0 95 0.96 0.95 0 87 0.84 0 62 0.73 0 68 0.83

Lower Monumental 0.89 0 90 0.92 0 96 0.97 0.96 0 90 0.86 0 66 0.79 0.74 0.87

Ice Harbor 0.88 0 89 0.91 0 95 0.96 0.96 0 89 0.85 0 65 0.76 0.72 0.86

McNary 0.84 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0.96 0 89 0.85 0 64 0.75 0.71 0.85

John Day 0.82 0 81 0.73 0 83 0.87 0.86 0.74 0.65 0.40 0.59 0 61 0.75

The Dalles 0.94 0 94 0.91 0 94 0.96 0.95 0 91 0.88 0.76 0.85 0 86 0.91

Bonneville 0.88 0 88 0.83 0 89 0.92 0.92 0 84 0.78 0 59 0.73 0.74 0.84

Rocky Reach 0.96 0 96 0.92 0 95 0.96 0.96 0 95 0.93 0 88 0.91 0 92 0.94

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.96 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wanapum 0.96 0 96 0.93 0 95 0.97 0.97 0 95 0.93 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.95

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wells 0.97 0 97 0.94 0 96 0.97 0.97 0 96 0.95 0 91 0.94 0 94 0.96

Hanford Reach 0.85 0 86 0.89 0 94 0.95 0.95 0 88 0.84 0 62 0.72 0 66 0.82

Subyearling - Hydro 
Table E-2a,b,c. Subyearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for the 

Historic condition and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Little Goose 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Lower Monumental 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Ice Harbor 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

McNary 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

John Day 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

The Dalles 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Bonneville 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Rocky Reach 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Rock Island 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Wanapum 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Priest Rapids 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Wells 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0 94 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 94 0.84 0.82 0 91 0.93 0 94

Little Goose 0 93 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 93 0.81 0.85 0 90 0.92 0 93

Lower Monumental 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 94 0.84 0.88 0 93 0.94 0 95

Ice Harbor 0 94 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 94 0.82 0.85 0 92 0.93 0 94

McNary 0 92 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 94 0.82 0.84 0 92 0.93 0 94

John Day 0.78 0.81 0 85 0.92 0 96 0.96 0 91 0.78 0.69 0.77 0.78 0.79

The Dalles 0 92 0.93 0 95 0.97 0 99 0.99 0 97 0.92 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 93

Bonneville 0 86 0.88 0 91 0.95 0 98 0.98 0 95 0.86 0.81 0 86 0.86 0 87

Rocky Reach 0 93 0.94 0 95 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.96 0.94 0 95 0.94 0 94

Rock Island 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.99 1 00 1.00 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97

Wanapum 0 94 0.94 0 95 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.97 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 94

Priest Rapids 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.99 1 00 1.00 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97

Wells 0 95 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.97 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 95

Hanford Reach 0 92 0.94 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 93 0.81 0.84 0 89 0.91 0 92

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Little Goose 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Lower Monumental 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Ice Harbor 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

McNary 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

John Day 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

The Dalles 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Bonneville 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Rocky Reach 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Rock Island 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Wanapum 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Priest Rapids 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Wells 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0 94 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 93 0.82 0.82 0 91 0.92 0 93

Little Goose 0 93 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 92 0.79 0.79 0 90 0.92 0 93

Lower Monumental 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 94 0.81 0.81 0 92 0.94 0 94

Ice Harbor 0 94 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 93 0.79 0.80 0 92 0.93 0 94

McNary 0 92 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 93 0.76 0.76 0 91 0.93 0 94

John Day 0.77 0.80 0 84 0.92 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.70 0.58 0.76 0.77 0.78

The Dalles 0 92 0.93 0 95 0.97 0 99 0.99 0 97 0.89 0.84 0 92 0.92 0 92

Bonneville 0 86 0.88 0 90 0.95 0 98 0.98 0 94 0.81 0.71 0 85 0.86 0 86

Rocky Reach 0 93 0.93 0 95 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 94 0.94 0 94

Rock Island 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.99 1 00 1.00 0 99 0.98 0.96 0 97 0.97 0 97

Wanapum 0 93 0.94 0 95 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.96 0.93 0 95 0.95 0 94

Priest Rapids 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.99 1 00 1.00 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97

Wells 0 95 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.97 0.95 0 96 0.96 0 95

Hanford Reach 0 92 0.93 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 92 0.74 0.74 0 88 0.90 0 92

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Little Goose 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Lower Monumental 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Ice Harbor 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

McNary 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

John Day 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

The Dalles 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Bonneville 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Rocky Reach 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Rock Island 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Wanapum 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Priest Rapids 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Wells 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0 94 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 94 0.87 0.87 0 92 0.93 0 94

Little Goose 0 93 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 94 0.85 0.85 0 91 0.92 0 93

Lower Monumental 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 95 0.88 0.88 0 93 0.94 0 95

Ice Harbor 0 94 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 95 0.86 0.87 0 92 0.93 0 94

McNary 0 93 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 95 0.86 0.86 0 92 0.93 0 94

John Day 0.78 0.81 0 85 0.92 0 96 0.97 0 92 0.83 0.74 0.78 0.79 0.79

The Dalles 0 92 0.94 0 95 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 98 0.94 0.91 0 92 0.93 0 93

Bonneville 0 87 0.89 0 91 0.95 0 98 0.98 0 95 0.89 0.84 0 86 0.87 0 87

Rocky Reach 0 93 0.94 0 95 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.97 0.95 0 95 0.94 0 94

Rock Island 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.99 1 00 1.00 0 99 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 97

Wanapum 0 94 0.94 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.97 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95

Priest Rapids 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.99 1 00 1.00 0 99 0.99 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 97

Wells 0 95 0.95 0 96 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96

Hanford Reach 0 92 0.94 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 94 0.84 0.84 0 89 0.91 0 92

Subyearling - Hydro 
Table E-3a,b,c. Subyearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for

Alternative 2 and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 0.95 0 98 0.95 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.92

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.94 0 94 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.94 0.92 0 87 0.86 0 89 0.93

Little Goose 0.93 0 93 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.94 0.89 0 90 0.84 0 88 0.93

Lower Monumental 0.95 0 95 0.96 0 98 0.99 0 98 0.95 0.88 0 92 0.88 0 90 0.94

Ice Harbor 0.94 0 94 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.94 0.88 0 89 0.86 0 89 0.94

McNary 0.92 0 94 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.94 0.91 0 89 0.84 0 88 0.93

John Day 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.94 0 94 0.87 0.79 0.74 0.79 0 82 0.88

The Dalles 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.92 0 90 0.92 0 93 0.96

Bonneville 0.93 0 93 0.92 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.91 0.87 0 83 0.86 0 88 0.92

Rocky Reach 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.96 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.97

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.98

Wanapum 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.96 0 95 0.95 0 96 0.97

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0.98 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wells 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 96 0.96 0 97 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.92 0 93 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 97 0.94 0.91 0 90 0.83 0 86 0.92

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 0.95 0 98 0.95 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.92

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.93 0 94 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.93 0.90 0 86 0.85 0 88 0.93

Little Goose 0.93 0 93 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.93 0.86 0 81 0.84 0 87 0.92

Lower Monumental 0.94 0 95 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.94 0.89 0 85 0.87 0 90 0.94

Ice Harbor 0.94 0 94 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.94 0.88 0 84 0.86 0 89 0.93

McNary 0.91 0 93 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 97 0.92 0.86 0 82 0.83 0 87 0.92

John Day 0.89 0 89 0.88 0 92 0.94 0 93 0.85 0.72 0 62 0.78 0 81 0.87

The Dalles 0.96 0 96 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.94 0.89 0 85 0.91 0 93 0.95

Bonneville 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.89 0.82 0.75 0.85 0 87 0.92

Rocky Reach 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.95 0 92 0.94 0 95 0.97

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.98

Wanapum 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.95 0 93 0.95 0 95 0.97

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0.98 0 96 0.97 0 98 0.98

Wells 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.98 0.96 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.97

Hanford Reach 0.92 0 92 0.94 0 97 0.98 0 97 0.93 0.87 0 83 0.81 0 86 0.91

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 0.95 0 98 0.95 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.92

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.91

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.94 0 94 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.94 0 92 0.87 0 89 0.94

Little Goose 0.93 0 94 0.95 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.93 0 90 0.86 0 88 0.93

Lower Monumental 0.95 0 95 0.96 0 98 0.99 0 98 0.96 0.94 0 92 0.89 0 91 0.95

Ice Harbor 0.94 0 95 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.93 0 91 0.87 0 90 0.94

McNary 0.92 0 94 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.93 0 91 0.86 0 89 0.93

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.90 0 93 0.95 0 95 0.90 0.85 0 80 0.81 0 83 0.89

The Dalles 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.95 0 93 0.93 0 94 0.96

Bonneville 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.93 0.91 0 87 0.87 0 89 0.93

Rocky Reach 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 96 0.97

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.97

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0.99 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wells 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.93 0 93 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.93 0 91 0.84 0 87 0.92

Subyearling - Hydro
Table E-4a,b,c. Subyearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for

Alternative 5 and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.91

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95

John Day 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

The Dalles 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.94 0 94 0.94

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.91

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.87 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.85 0.83 0 58 0.74 0 69 0.84

Little Goose 0.86 0 87 0.89 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.83 0.79 0 60 0.72 0 67 0.83

Lower Monumental 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.88 0.77 0 67 0.77 0.73 0.86

Ice Harbor 0.88 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.85 0.79 0 60 0.75 0.71 0.85

McNary 0.84 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.86 0.79 0 58 0.74 0 69 0.84

John Day 0.78 0.78 0.71 0 82 0.86 0 85 0.69 0.55 0 30 0.57 0 59 0.74

The Dalles 0.92 0 92 0.89 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.89 0.84 0.70 0.84 0 85 0.91

Bonneville 0.86 0 86 0.81 0 89 0.91 0 91 0.81 0.72 0 52 0.72 0.73 0.84

Rocky Reach 0.95 0 95 0.91 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.91 0 85 0.91 0 91 0.94

Rock Island 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.96 0 93 0.95 0 95 0.97

Wanapum 0.95 0 95 0.92 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.95 0.92 0 87 0.92 0 92 0.95

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.96 0 93 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wells 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.96 0.94 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.96

Hanford Reach 0.85 0 86 0.88 0 94 0.95 0 94 0.87 0.80 0 59 0.70 0 65 0.81

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.91

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95

John Day 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

The Dalles 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.94 0 94 0.94

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.91

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.86 0 87 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.83 0.81 0 56 0.72 0 68 0.83

Little Goose 0.85 0 86 0.88 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.80 0.76 0.48 0.70 0 66 0.82

Lower Monumental 0.88 0 89 0.91 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.86 0.75 0.46 0.76 0.72 0.86

Ice Harbor 0.87 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.83 0.75 0.47 0.74 0.70 0.84

McNary 0.83 0 87 0.89 0 94 0.95 0 94 0.83 0.71 0 39 0.72 0 68 0.83

John Day 0.77 0.77 0.68 0 81 0.84 0 83 0.62 0.46 0.17 0.54 0 57 0.72

The Dalles 0.92 0 92 0.88 0 93 0.94 0 94 0.87 0.78 0 57 0.82 0 83 0.90

Bonneville 0.85 0 85 0.79 0 88 0.90 0 90 0.76 0.63 0 35 0.70 0.72 0.83

Rocky Reach 0.94 0 94 0.90 0 94 0.96 0 95 0.93 0.88 0.77 0.90 0 90 0.93

Rock Island 0.97 0 97 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.94 0 88 0.95 0 95 0.97

Wanapum 0.95 0 95 0.91 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.89 0.79 0.91 0 91 0.94

Priest Rapids 0.97 0 97 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.94 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.97

Wells 0.96 0 96 0.93 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.95 0.91 0 83 0.92 0 93 0.95

Hanford Reach 0.84 0 85 0.87 0 93 0.95 0 93 0.84 0.66 0 32 0.68 0 63 0.80

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.91

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95

John Day 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

The Dalles 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.94 0 94 0.94

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.91

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.90

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.88 0 89 0.91 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.89 0.87 0 68 0.76 0.71 0.85

Little Goose 0.87 0 87 0.90 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.87 0.84 0 63 0.74 0 69 0.84

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.92 0 96 0.97 0 96 0.90 0.86 0 67 0.79 0.75 0.87

Ice Harbor 0.88 0 89 0.91 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.89 0.86 0 66 0.77 0.73 0.86

McNary 0.85 0 89 0.91 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.89 0.85 0 65 0.76 0.71 0.85

John Day 0.80 0 80 0.73 0 84 0.87 0 87 0.76 0.68 0.42 0.61 0 62 0.76

The Dalles 0.93 0 93 0.91 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.92 0.89 0.76 0.85 0 86 0.92

Bonneville 0.87 0 87 0.83 0 90 0.92 0 92 0.85 0.80 0 61 0.75 0.75 0.85

Rocky Reach 0.95 0 95 0.92 0 95 0.97 0 96 0.95 0.94 0 88 0.92 0 92 0.94

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.97 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wanapum 0.96 0 96 0.93 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.96 0.94 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.95

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.97 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wells 0.97 0 97 0.94 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.95 0 91 0.94 0 94 0.96

Hanford Reach 0.85 0 86 0.89 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.88 0.84 0 62 0.72 0 66 0.82

Subyearling - Hydro 
Table E-5a,b,c. Subyearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for

Alternative 6 and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.92 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.92

The Dalles 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.87 0 88 0.89 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.84 0.81 0 50 0.73 0.70 0.85

Little Goose 0.86 0 86 0.89 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.82 0.77 0 53 0.71 0 67 0.83

Lower Monumental 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.87 0.75 0 61 0.77 0.74 0.87

Ice Harbor 0.88 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.84 0.77 0 53 0.75 0.71 0.85

McNary 0.84 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.85 0.77 0 52 0.74 0.70 0.85

John Day 0.81 0.79 0.72 0 82 0.85 0 85 0.68 0.51 0 29 0.57 0 59 0.73

The Dalles 0.94 0 93 0.90 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.89 0.82 0 69 0.84 0 85 0.91

Bonneville 0.88 0 86 0.82 0 88 0.91 0 91 0.80 0.69 0 50 0.72 0.73 0.83

Rocky Reach 0.96 0 95 0.92 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.90 0 85 0.90 0 91 0.94

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.95 0 92 0.95 0 95 0.97

Wanapum 0.96 0 96 0.92 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.91 0 86 0.91 0 92 0.94

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.95 0 93 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wells 0.97 0 96 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.96 0.93 0 89 0.93 0 93 0.95

Hanford Reach 0.86 0 86 0.88 0 94 0.95 0 94 0.86 0.78 0 53 0.70 0 66 0.82

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.92 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.92

The Dalles 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.87 0 87 0.89 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.82 0.78 0.49 0.71 0 68 0.84

Little Goose 0.86 0 86 0.88 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.79 0.73 0.40 0.70 0 66 0.83

Lower Monumental 0.89 0 89 0.90 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.85 0.72 0 38 0.75 0.72 0.86

Ice Harbor 0.88 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.82 0.73 0 39 0.74 0.70 0.85

McNary 0.83 0 87 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.82 0.68 0 32 0.72 0 68 0.84

John Day 0.80 0.78 0.70 0 80 0.84 0 84 0.61 0.41 0.15 0.54 0 57 0.71

The Dalles 0.93 0 92 0.89 0 93 0.95 0 94 0.86 0.76 0 55 0.82 0 84 0.90

Bonneville 0.87 0 85 0.80 0 87 0.90 0 90 0.75 0.59 0 33 0.69 0.71 0.82

Rocky Reach 0.95 0 95 0.90 0 93 0.95 0 95 0.93 0.86 0.77 0.89 0 90 0.93

Rock Island 0.98 0 97 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 88 0.94 0 95 0.96

Wanapum 0.96 0 95 0.91 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.93 0.87 0.79 0.90 0 91 0.94

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.93 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.97

Wells 0.97 0 96 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.95 0.89 0 83 0.92 0 93 0.95

Hanford Reach 0.85 0 85 0.87 0 93 0.95 0 93 0.83 0.63 0 25 0.68 0 64 0.81

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.92 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.92

The Dalles 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.93 0.93 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.88 0 89 0.91 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.88 0.85 0 62 0.76 0.72 0.86

Little Goose 0.87 0 88 0.90 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.86 0.82 0 57 0.74 0 69 0.84

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.92 0 96 0.97 0 96 0.90 0.84 0 60 0.79 0.76 0.88

Ice Harbor 0.89 0 89 0.91 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.88 0.84 0 59 0.77 0.73 0.87

McNary 0.85 0 89 0.91 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.88 0.84 0 59 0.76 0.72 0.86

John Day 0.82 0 81 0.75 0 84 0.87 0 87 0.75 0.65 0.40 0.61 0 62 0.75

The Dalles 0.94 0 93 0.91 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.91 0.88 0.75 0.85 0 86 0.91

Bonneville 0.89 0 88 0.83 0 90 0.92 0 92 0.84 0.78 0 59 0.74 0.75 0.84

Rocky Reach 0.96 0 95 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.95 0.92 0 88 0.91 0 92 0.94

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.96 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wanapum 0.96 0 96 0.93 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.95 0.93 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.95

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.97 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.97

Wells 0.97 0 97 0.95 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.96 0.94 0 91 0.94 0 94 0.96

Hanford Reach 0.86 0 86 0.89 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.88 0.82 0 55 0.72 0 67 0.83

Subyearling - Hydro 
Tables E-6a,b,c. Yearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for the

Current condition and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

The Dalles 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 90 0.90 0 90 0.90

Bonneville 0.90 0 90 0.92 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 93 0.93 0 90 0.90

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.90 0 90 0.90 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.93 0 94 0.91 0 90 0.91 0 91 0.73 0.72 0 58 0.82 0 91 0.93

Little Goose 0.93 0 93 0.91 0 90 0.91 0 91 0.69 0.65 0 64 0.81 0 90 0.92

Lower Monumental 0.94 0 95 0.93 0 92 0.93 0 93 0.77 0.62 0 69 0.85 0 92 0.94

Ice Harbor 0.94 0 94 0.92 0 91 0.92 0 92 0.72 0.65 0 61 0.83 0 91 0.93

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.91 0 90 0.91 0 91 0.76 0.66 0 62 0.84 0 92 0.94

John Day 0.93 0 93 0.86 0 83 0.85 0 86 0.65 0.49 0.41 0.77 0 88 0.91

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.95 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.88 0.81 0.77 0.92 0 96 0.97

Bonneville 0.96 0 96 0.92 0 90 0.91 0 91 0.78 0.67 0 61 0.86 0 93 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.98 0 98 0.95 0 94 0.95 0 96 0.93 0.87 0 84 0.93 0 97 0.98

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 92 0.97 0 98 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.93 0.88 0 85 0.94 0 97 0.98

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.94 0 92 0.97 0 98 0.99

Wells 0.99 0 99 0.97 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.95 0.90 0 88 0.95 0 98 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.93 0.87 0 86 0.93 0 96 0.97

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

The Dalles 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 90 0.90 0 90 0.90

Bonneville 0.90 0 90 0.92 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 93 0.93 0 90 0.90

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.90 0 90 0.90 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.77 0.78 0.71 0 81 0.83 0 83 0.58 0.56 0.41 0.58 0 69 0.75

Little Goose 0.86 0 86 0.82 0 89 0.90 0 90 0.62 0.58 0.43 0.74 0 80 0.84

Lower Monumental 0.81 0 82 0.76 0 84 0.86 0 86 0.64 0.51 0 36 0.65 0.74 0.79

Ice Harbor 0.87 0 88 0.85 0 90 0.92 0 91 0.67 0.57 0.43 0.77 0 82 0.86

McNary 0.86 0 86 0.76 0 83 0.85 0 85 0.63 0.51 0 37 0.69 0.79 0.84

John Day 0.86 0 85 0.75 0 81 0.84 0 85 0.54 0.40 0 26 0.69 0.78 0.83

The Dalles 0.92 0 92 0.85 0 89 0.90 0 91 0.78 0.70 0 99 0.98 0 87 0.90

Bonneville 0.91 0 91 0.84 0 89 0.90 0 91 0.70 0.58 0.45 0.80 0 86 0.89

Rocky Reach 0.94 0 93 0.84 0 88 0.91 0 91 0.86 0.76 0 65 0.83 0 88 0.91

Rock Island 0.97 0 97 0.92 0 94 0.95 0 96 0.93 0.87 0 81 0.91 0 94 0.96

Wanapum 0.94 0 94 0.86 0 89 0.92 0 92 0.87 0.78 0 68 0.84 0 89 0.92

Priest Rapids 0.97 0 97 0.93 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.93 0.88 0 83 0.92 0 95 0.96

Wells 0.95 0 95 0.88 0 91 0.93 0 94 0.89 0.82 0.74 0.87 0 91 0.94

Hanford Reach 0.99 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.94 0.81 0.73 0.96 0 97 0.98

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.94 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 95 0.95 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 90 0.90

The Dalles 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 90 0.90 0 90 0.90

Bonneville 0.90 0 90 0.92 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 93 0.93 0 90 0.90

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.90 0 90 0.90 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.92 0 93 0.91 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.84 0.83 0.75 0.87 0 89 0.92

Little Goose 0.92 0 92 0.91 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.81 0.78 0 69 0.86 0 89 0.91

Lower Monumental 0.94 0 94 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.86 0.78 0 69 0.89 0 91 0.93

Ice Harbor 0.93 0 93 0.92 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.83 0.79 0.70 0.88 0 90 0.93

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.92 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.85 0.80 0.71 0.89 0 92 0.94

John Day 0.92 0 92 0.87 0 90 0.92 0 92 0.78 0.68 0 57 0.83 0 88 0.90

The Dalles 0.98 0 97 0.96 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.93 0.89 0 99 0.99 0 96 0.97

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.92 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.87 0.80 0.73 0.90 0 92 0.94

Rocky Reach 0.98 0 98 0.95 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.96 0.92 0 88 0.95 0 96 0.97

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.96 0 94 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 89 0.96 0 97 0.98

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.96 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wells 0.99 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.94 0 91 0.96 0 97 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.97 0.94 0 91 0.98 0 98 0.99

Yearling - Hydro / Page 5
Tables E-7a,b,c. Yearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for the

Historic condition and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Bonneville 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Rocky Reach 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Rock Island 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Wanapum 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Priest Rapids 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Wells 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.92 0.81 0.76 0.96 0 98 0.98

Little Goose 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.90 0.75 0 84 0.96 0 98 0.98

Lower Monumental 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.92 0.79 0 89 0.97 0 98 0.98

Ice Harbor 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.90 0.74 0 81 0.97 0 98 0.98

McNary 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.91 0.74 0.76 0.95 0 97 0.97

John Day 0.94 0 95 0.93 0 96 0.98 0 98 0.86 0.63 0 58 0.91 0 94 0.94

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.95 0.86 0 85 0.97 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 97 0.99 0 99 0.92 0.76 0.73 0.94 0 97 0.97

Rocky Reach 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.93 0 91 0.97 0 98 0.98

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.97 0 96 0.99 0 99 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 1 00 0.98 0.94 0 92 0.97 0 98 0.98

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.97 0 96 0.99 0 99 0.99

Wells 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 99 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.95 0 94 0.98 0 99 0.99

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.93 0 92 0.97 0 98 0.98

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Bonneville 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Rocky Reach 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Rock Island 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Wanapum 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Priest Rapids 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Wells 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.97 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.89 0.74 0.74 0.94 0 97 0.97

Little Goose 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.89 0.70 0.71 0.96 0 98 0.98

Lower Monumental 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.95 0 97 0.98

Ice Harbor 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.89 0.69 0.70 0.96 0 98 0.98

McNary 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 96 0.98 0 98 0.87 0.64 0 58 0.92 0 95 0.96

John Day 0.94 0 94 0.92 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.82 0.49 0 39 0.90 0 94 0.94

The Dalles 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.93 0.79 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99

Bonneville 0.96 0 97 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 99 0.89 0.65 0 57 0.94 0 96 0.96

Rocky Reach 0.97 0 97 0.95 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.97 0.89 0 84 0.95 0 97 0.97

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 1 00 0.99 0.95 0 92 0.98 0 99 0.98

Wanapum 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.90 0 85 0.96 0 97 0.97

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 99 0.98 0 99 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.95 0 92 0.98 0 99 0.99

Wells 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.92 0 88 0.96 0 98 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.97 0.87 0 81 0.97 0 98 0.98

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Bonneville 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Rocky Reach 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Rock Island 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Wanapum 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Priest Rapids 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Wells 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.95 0.88 0 88 0.98 0 99 0.99

Little Goose 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.94 0.85 0 85 0.97 0 98 0.99

Lower Monumental 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.95 0.88 0 88 0.98 0 99 0.99

Ice Harbor 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.94 0.85 0 85 0.98 0 99 0.99

McNary 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.95 0.85 0 82 0.97 0 98 0.98

John Day 0.96 0 96 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 99 0.92 0.77 0.71 0.94 0 96 0.96

The Dalles 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 1 00 0.97 0.92 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.99

Bonneville 0.97 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.95 0.86 0 82 0.96 0 97 0.97

Rocky Reach 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.96 0 94 0.98 0 99 0.99

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.99 1 00 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.98 0 97 0.99 0 99 0.99

Wanapum 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.96 0 95 0.98 0 99 0.99

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.99 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 0.98 0 97 0.99 0 99 0.99

Wells 0.99 0 99 0.99 0 99 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.97 0 96 0.99 0 99 0.99

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 1.00 1 00 0.99 0.96 0 94 0.98 0 99 0.98

Yearling - Hydro / Page 5
Tables E-8a,b,c. Yearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for

Alternative 2 and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.92

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.89 0.82 0.74 0.91 0 94 0.96

Little Goose 0.96 0 96 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.88 0.76 0 82 0.90 0 94 0.95

Lower Monumental 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.90 0.75 0 86 0.92 0 95 0.96

Ice Harbor 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.89 0.75 0.78 0.91 0 95 0.96

McNary 0.93 0 93 0.90 0 93 0.94 0 94 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.85 0 90 0.93

John Day 0.92 0 92 0.89 0 92 0.93 0 94 0.75 0.57 0 54 0.84 0 89 0.92

The Dalles 0.95 0 95 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.88 0.81 0.79 0.90 0 93 0.95

Bonneville 0.93 0 94 0.91 0 93 0.95 0 95 0.81 0.70 0 67 0.86 0 91 0.93

Rocky Reach 0.96 0 96 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.88 0 86 0.91 0 94 0.96

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.94 0 93 0.95 0 97 0.98

Wanapum 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.94 0.89 0 87 0.92 0 94 0.96

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.95 0 94 0.96 0 97 0.98

Wells 0.97 0 97 0.95 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.95 0.91 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.97

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.91 0 92 0.96 0 97 0.98

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.92

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.93 0 93 0.92 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.84 0.75 0.70 0.84 0 90 0.93

Little Goose 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 97 0.98 0 97 0.86 0.71 0 66 0.89 0 93 0.95

Lower Monumental 0.94 0 94 0.93 0 96 0.97 0 96 0.86 0.74 0 69 0.86 0 92 0.94

Ice Harbor 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.88 0.74 0.70 0.91 0 94 0.96

McNary 0.88 0 89 0.82 0 86 0.88 0 88 0.73 0.57 0 50 0.73 0 84 0.88

John Day 0.92 0 92 0.88 0 91 0.93 0 91 0.66 0.46 0 39 0.82 0 88 0.91

The Dalles 0.90 0 90 0.86 0 89 0.91 0 92 0.79 0.71 0 94 0.93 0 93 0.95

Bonneville 0.92 0 92 0.89 0 92 0.93 0 94 0.74 0.62 0 55 0.85 0 90 0.92

Rocky Reach 0.92 0 92 0.87 0 90 0.92 0 93 0.88 0.80 0.74 0.82 0 89 0.92

Rock Island 0.96 0 96 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.89 0 86 0.91 0 94 0.96

Wanapum 0.93 0 93 0.88 0 91 0.93 0 93 0.89 0.81 0.76 0.83 0 90 0.92

Priest Rapids 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.94 0.90 0 87 0.91 0 95 0.96

Wells 0.94 0 94 0.90 0 93 0.94 0 95 0.91 0.85 0 80 0.87 0 92 0.94

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.85 0 81 0.95 0 97 0.98

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Little Goose 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Lower Monumental 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

Ice Harbor 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97

John Day 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.92

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.94 0.90 0 88 0.95 0 96 0.97

Little Goose 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.93 0.87 0 84 0.94 0 96 0.97

Lower Monumental 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.95 0.88 0 85 0.95 0 97 0.98

Ice Harbor 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.94 0.87 0 85 0.95 0 97 0.98

McNary 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.90 0.83 0 80 0.91 0 94 0.96

John Day 0.95 0 95 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.84 0.74 0 69 0.90 0 93 0.95

The Dalles 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 97 0.97 0 98 0.93 0.90 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 96 0.96 0 97 0.89 0.83 0.79 0.92 0 94 0.96

Rocky Reach 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 91 0.95 0 96 0.97

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 96 0.97 0 98 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.94 0 92 0.95 0 97 0.98

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 96 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wells 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.97 0.95 0 94 0.96 0 97 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.95 0 93 0.97 0 98 0.99

Yearling - Hydro / Page 5
Tables E-9a,b,c. Yearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for

Alternative 5 and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Ice Harbor 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.95

The Dalles 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.92

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.93 0 93 0.92 0 95 0.96 0 95 0.76 0.74 0 61 0.87 0 90 0.92

Little Goose 0.91 0 91 0.89 0 93 0.94 0 93 0.70 0.66 0 65 0.83 0 87 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.95 0 95 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 96 0.81 0.65 0.74 0.90 0 93 0.94

Ice Harbor 0.93 0 93 0.91 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.74 0.67 0 63 0.86 0 90 0.92

McNary 0.93 0 93 0.89 0 93 0.94 0 94 0.78 0.68 0 63 0.86 0 90 0.93

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.83 0 88 0.90 0 90 0.66 0.51 0.42 0.78 0 85 0.88

The Dalles 0.96 0 96 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.88 0.82 0.77 0.92 0 94 0.96

Bonneville 0.94 0 94 0.91 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.80 0.70 0 63 0.88 0 92 0.94

Rocky Reach 0.97 0 97 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 97 0.93 0.88 0 84 0.93 0 95 0.96

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.94 0 92 0.96 0 97 0.98

Wanapum 0.97 0 97 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.93 0.89 0 85 0.94 0 95 0.97

Priest Rapids 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.94 0 92 0.97 0 98 0.98

Wells 0.98 0 98 0.95 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.95 0.91 0 88 0.95 0 96 0.97

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.90 0 89 0.96 0 97 0.98

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Ice Harbor 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.95

The Dalles 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.92

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.85 0 85 0.83 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.64 0.63 0 54 0.77 0 83 0.87

Little Goose 0.89 0 89 0.87 0 91 0.92 0 92 0.65 0.60 0.48 0.81 0 86 0.89

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.87 0 92 0.93 0 93 0.73 0.59 0.46 0.82 0 88 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.92 0 92 0.89 0 93 0.94 0 94 0.70 0.61 0.48 0.85 0 90 0.92

McNary 0.89 0 89 0.82 0 87 0.88 0 88 0.68 0.56 0.42 0.77 0 85 0.88

John Day 0.88 0 88 0.80 0 86 0.88 0 87 0.57 0.44 0 29 0.76 0 84 0.87

The Dalles 0.92 0 92 0.87 0 91 0.92 0 92 0.80 0.72 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.95

Bonneville 0.93 0 93 0.89 0 92 0.93 0 93 0.74 0.63 0.49 0.87 0 91 0.93

Rocky Reach 0.93 0 93 0.86 0 91 0.92 0 92 0.87 0.78 0 68 0.86 0 90 0.93

Rock Island 0.97 0 97 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.93 0.89 0 83 0.93 0 95 0.96

Wanapum 0.94 0 94 0.87 0 92 0.93 0 93 0.88 0.80 0.71 0.88 0 91 0.94

Priest Rapids 0.97 0 97 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.94 0.90 0 84 0.94 0 96 0.97

Wells 0.95 0 95 0.90 0 93 0.94 0 94 0.91 0.84 0.76 0.90 0 93 0.95

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.95 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94 0.82 0.73 0.96 0 97 0.98

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 94 0.94 0 94 0.92

Ice Harbor 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.95

The Dalles 0.95 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.96

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.92

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.94

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.95 0 95 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 96 0.86 0.85 0 80 0.92 0 94 0.95

Little Goose 0.94 0 94 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.82 0.80 0.72 0.90 0 92 0.94

Lower Monumental 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.89 0.81 0.73 0.94 0 95 0.96

Ice Harbor 0.95 0 95 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.85 0.81 0.73 0.92 0 94 0.95

McNary 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.87 0.82 0.74 0.92 0 94 0.95

John Day 0.93 0 93 0.89 0 92 0.93 0 93 0.80 0.71 0 60 0.87 0 91 0.93

The Dalles 0.97 0 97 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.93 0.90 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.89 0.83 0.76 0.93 0 95 0.96

Rocky Reach 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 89 0.96 0 97 0.98

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.94 0 90 0.96 0 97 0.98

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 99 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.97 0 95 0.98 0 99 0.99

Wells 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.95 0 92 0.97 0 98 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.99 0 99 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.97 0.94 0 91 0.98 0 98 0.99

Yearling - Hydro / Page 5
Tables E-10a,b,c. Yearling survival rates by month for Snake and Columbia River Hydroelectric Projects for

Alternative 6 and moderate, nature, and technology worldviews.

a) Moderate

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.88 0 92 0.93 0 93 0.72 0.70 0 55 0.81 0 86 0.89

Little Goose 0.89 0 89 0.87 0 92 0.93 0 92 0.67 0.62 0 61 0.80 0 85 0.88

Lower Monumental 0.92 0 92 0.90 0 93 0.94 0 94 0.77 0.61 0 67 0.84 0 88 0.91

Ice Harbor 0.91 0 91 0.89 0 93 0.94 0 93 0.72 0.63 0 58 0.82 0 87 0.90

McNary 0.93 0 92 0.89 0 92 0.94 0 94 0.76 0.66 0 62 0.85 0 89 0.91

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.84 0 88 0.90 0 90 0.66 0.48 0.41 0.79 0 84 0.88

The Dalles 0.97 0 97 0.95 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.88 0.81 0.77 0.93 0 95 0.96

Bonneville 0.94 0 94 0.90 0 93 0.94 0 94 0.79 0.67 0 61 0.87 0 90 0.92

Rocky Reach 0.97 0 96 0.93 0 94 0.96 0 96 0.92 0.85 0 83 0.92 0 94 0.96

Rock Island 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 91 0.96 0 97 0.98

Wanapum 0.97 0 97 0.93 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.93 0.87 0 84 0.92 0 95 0.96

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 98 0.97 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 92 0.96 0 97 0.98

Wells 0.98 0 97 0.95 0 96 0.97 0 97 0.94 0.89 0 87 0.94 0 96 0.97

Hanford Reach 0.99 0 98 0.97 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.95 0.89 0 89 0.96 0 97 0.98

b) Technology Pessimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.79 0 80 0.75 0 84 0.85 0 84 0.58 0.55 0.44 0.66 0.75 0.80

Little Goose 0.87 0 87 0.85 0 90 0.91 0 91 0.62 0.57 0.44 0.78 0 83 0.87

Lower Monumental 0.83 0 83 0.79 0 87 0.88 0 88 0.65 0.51 0 37 0.71 0.78 0.83

Ice Harbor 0.89 0 89 0.87 0 92 0.93 0 92 0.68 0.57 0.43 0.81 0 85 0.89

McNary 0.89 0 88 0.82 0 87 0.87 0 88 0.66 0.53 0.41 0.77 0 83 0.86

John Day 0.88 0 87 0.81 0 86 0.88 0 87 0.57 0.41 0 29 0.77 0 83 0.86

The Dalles 0.93 0 93 0.89 0 92 0.93 0 93 0.80 0.72 0 93 0.93 0 93 0.95

Bonneville 0.93 0 92 0.88 0 91 0.92 0 93 0.72 0.59 0.48 0.86 0 89 0.92

Rocky Reach 0.94 0 93 0.84 0 88 0.90 0 91 0.85 0.74 0 66 0.84 0 89 0.92

Rock Island 0.97 0 96 0.92 0 94 0.95 0 95 0.92 0.87 0 82 0.92 0 95 0.96

Wanapum 0.94 0 93 0.86 0 89 0.91 0 92 0.86 0.76 0 69 0.85 0 90 0.93

Priest Rapids 0.97 0 97 0.93 0 94 0.95 0 96 0.93 0.88 0 83 0.92 0 95 0.96

Wells 0.95 0 95 0.88 0 91 0.93 0 93 0.89 0.81 0.74 0.88 0 92 0.94

Hanford Reach 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.93 0.80 0.73 0.96 0 97 0.98

c) Technology Optimistic

Dams

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

Little Goose 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

Lower Monumental 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0.96 0 96 0.96 0 90 0.90

Ice Harbor 0.90 0 90 0.94 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 90 0.90

McNary 0.95 0 95 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.96

John Day 0.90 0 90 0.93 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.93

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.95 0 95 0.96 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Rock Island 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wanapum 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Priest Rapids 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.95 0.95 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Wells 0.89 0 89 0.89 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.97 0.97 0 89 0.89 0 89 0.89

Reservoirs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lower Granite 0.93 0 93 0.92 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.83 0.82 0.76 0.89 0 91 0.93

Little Goose 0.93 0 93 0.92 0 95 0.95 0 95 0.81 0.78 0 69 0.88 0 91 0.93

Lower Monumental 0.95 0 95 0.94 0 96 0.97 0 96 0.87 0.78 0 69 0.91 0 93 0.94

Ice Harbor 0.94 0 94 0.93 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.84 0.79 0.70 0.90 0 92 0.94

McNary 0.96 0 95 0.94 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.86 0.80 0.73 0.91 0 93 0.95

John Day 0.93 0 93 0.90 0 92 0.93 0 93 0.79 0.69 0 60 0.87 0 90 0.92

The Dalles 0.98 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.93 0.90 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.98

Bonneville 0.96 0 96 0.94 0 95 0.96 0 96 0.88 0.81 0.75 0.92 0 94 0.95

Rocky Reach 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.97 0 97 0.95 0.92 0 89 0.95 0 97 0.97

Rock Island 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.96 0 94 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wanapum 0.98 0 98 0.96 0 97 0.98 0 98 0.96 0.93 0 90 0.96 0 97 0.98

Priest Rapids 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 98 0.99 0 99 0.98 0.96 0 95 0.98 0 98 0.99

Wells 0.99 0 98 0.97 0 98 0.98 0 98 0.97 0.94 0 92 0.97 0 98 0.98

Hanford Reach 0.99 0 99 0.98 0 98 0.98 0 99 0.97 0.94 0 91 0.98 0 98 0.99

Yearling - Hydro / Page 5
1

Appendix F-1

Black Bear

Habitat Assessment Method

Summary

This document summarizes the steps taken by the Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) to produce 

Black Bear Habitat Condition Indexes (HCIs) for each 6th Order HUC in the Columbia River Basin. 

These procedures were applied for the current, normative, and three alternative conditions. Streamnet's 

6th Order HUC ArcInfo polygon coverage was updated with several items to produce the initial COVER, 

FOOD, HUMAN, and HCI variables for the Black Bear Habitat Assessment Method. The first section 

describes the analysis methods including equations and weights used to derive the variables. The Arc 

Macro Language (AML) program written to calculate the variables can easily be re-executed if the 

equations or weights need to be adjusted. The second section details the individual items found in the 

resulting coverages. Appendix A lists the 32 habitat codes and class names, and Appendix B contains 

NHI's Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS) habitat association data for the Black Bear. 

Appendix C contains the Black Bear berry index.

Analysis

Preparation

A major portion of the Habitat Assessment Method depends on knowing the habitat composition 

of each 6th Order HUC. These measurements were calculated using the NHI Current and Normative 

Wildlife-Habitat Types grids and Streamnet's 6th Order HUC coverage. Due to its large area extent and 

high 25m resolution, the Current habitat grid could not be converted to a vector coverage without 

significant generalization of the data. Therefore, the HUC coverage was converted to a grid and an AML 

was written to perform a Grid analysis of the HUC and habitat data sets. This AML calculated the 

percentage of each habitat type in each HUC and wrote these results into the original HUC coverage as 

items H1PCNT - H32PCNT where 1 - 32 equals the 32 habitat type codes(see Appendix A). The 

remainder of the analysis was completed in ArcInfo using the updated HUC coverages. 

Additionally, road density data for each alternative were compiled by Battelle and NHI (see 

Habitat Condition Index section). The three alternative scenarios were run using habitat data modeled by 

Battelle, and Salmon carcass data were provided by Mobrand Biometrics.

Habitat Assessment Method

The Habitat Assessment Method consists of two major sections. The first is a preliminary

screening of all HUCS. During this screening, HUCS are either included in or excluded from further 

analysis based on specific criteria. The second section calculates the Habitat Condition Index (HCI) for 

those HUCS that pass the preliminary screening.
2

Preliminary Screening

The first step in the preliminary screening is to determine for each 6th order HUC if 80% or 

greater of the HUC is in the Black Bear's range. The Black Bear's range was established as any habitat 

type that has any association, 'Generally Associated' or 'Present,' with the Black Bear in the NHI

Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS) database (see Appendix B). Item RANGE_PCNT 

sums the percentages of all these-associated habitats per HUC. If RANGE_PCNT >= 80% for a HUC, 

item RANGE_KEEP was assigned a value of 1 for that HUC, otherwise it was assigned 0.

Since initial runs of the model on the current habitat data yielded unrealistic results (the bear 

range was too extensive), another preliminary step was added. This step expanded on the first by stating 

that only HUCS with 20 percent or greater 'Generally Associated' habitat types, and/or those with 20 

percent or more 'Present' habitat types and an adja cent HUC with 20percent or more 'Generally

Associated' habitat types would be kept for further analysis. If a HUC met these conditions, item 

PRES_KEEP was assigned a value of 1, otherwise a 0 was assigned.

Next, the data are examined to see if 90% or more of the HUC is non-urban. Item

URBAN_KEEP was added and given a 1 for each HUC that met this criteria and a 0 otherwise.

Finally, each HUC is evaluated for its amount of agricultural land. HUCS with 50% or more 

agriculture are excluded from further analysis. If H19_PCNT < 50%, item AGRIC_KEEP was assigned a 

1, otherwise a 0.

Item PRELM_KEEP was added to summarize the results of the preliminary screening. If

RANGE_KEEP, PRES_KEEP, URBAN_KEEP, and AGRIC_KEEP all equaled 1, then PRELM_KEEP 

was assigned a value of 1, otherwise it was assigned a 0. The remainder of the analysis was only 

performed on HUCS where PRELM_KEEP equals 1.

Habitat Condition Index

The Habitat Condition Index consists of four main calculations: Cover, Food, Human, and the 

HCI itself. This section describes each of these calculations.

Cover (C) was calculated by first calculating N, weighted percent NHI IBIS occurrence index, 

and L, percent forest habitat present. N was calculated by adding together items ASSOC_WT and

PRESENT_WT. ASSOC_WT equals the sum of the percentage of all 'Generally Associated' habitats 

(based on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 1. PRESNT_WT equals the sum of the percentage of all 

'Present' habitats (based on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 0.5. L was calculated simply by adding the 

percentages of all forested habitat types. Item C represents Cover and was calculated as N + L / 2.

Food (F) equals (FE * B) + S/ 2. FE is the weighted percent of feeding habitat based on IBIS 

data. All habitats associated with Black Bear in IBIS are feeding habitats and were given a weight of 1.0 

with the exception of H13 which was weighted 0 because its association type is unsure. The weighted 

feeding habitats for each HUC were then summed to produce FE. B in the model represent a berry index. 

Habitats were ranked High(1.0), Medium(0.5) or Low(0) based on the berry production potential (see 

Appendix C). The percentages of habitat area in each ranking were multiplied by the corresponding 

weight and the results added together to yield a B value for each HUC. Item S represents the absence or 

presence of carcasses in a HUC based on the salmon carcass data provided by Mobrand Biometrics which is 
3

summarized in item CARCASS. Any HUC with a value greater than 0 was assigned an S value of 1, 

otherwise a 0.

Human (H) was calculated using the equation:

H = 1- ( ( U + A ) * RDDENS_WT ).

Items U and A represent percent urban and percent agriculture, respectively. The RDDENS_WT item 

represents a weight based on estimated road density(ROAD_DENS) in the HUC. It is based on the 

following classification:

Rating miles/sqmi. Km/sqkm

Low - 1.0 <1 <0.621371

Med - 0.66 1-3 0.621371-1.864114

High -0.33 >3 >1.864114

The actual road density variable ROAD_DENS was provided by Battelle for the Interior 

Columbia River Basin. For the west side of the basin, NHI created a coverage of roads comprised mostly 

of 1:100,000 TIGER Census data with a small section of Washington completed with 1:24,000 roads 

from the Washington Department of Transportation. This coverage was then overlayed with the HUCs 

coverage and road densitites were calculated for the west-side HUCs. These data were then passed to 

Battelle who modeled road densities for the three alternatives for the entire Columbia River Basin.

The Habitat Condition Index (HCI) is calculated using the previously derived variables and the 

following equation:

HCI = ( ( C + F ) / 2 ) * H.
4

Data Description

This section contains projection information and item definitions for the final SAM for Black 

Bear ArcInfo coverage.

Projection info of ArcInfo coverage:

 Description of DOUBLE precision coverage bearcurr

 FEATURE CLASSES

 Number of Attribute Spatial

Feature Class Subclass Features data (bytes) Index? Topology?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCS 21779 32

POLYGONS 7063 616 Yes

NODES 14720

 SECONDARY FEATURES

Tics 1194

Arc Segments 494875

Polygon Labels 7062

 TOLERANCES

Fuzzy = 1.000 V Dangle = 1.000 V

 COVERAGE BOUNDARY

Xmin = 1232814.903 Xmax = 4918643.000

Ymin = 47913.910 Ymax = 2937186.250

 STATUS

The coverage has not been Edited since the last BUILD or CLEAN.

 COORDINATE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Projection LAMBERT

Units FEET Spheroid CLARKE1866

Parameters:

1st standard parallel 42 20 0.000

2nd standard parallel 48 40 0.000

central meridian -117 0 0.00

latitude of projection's origin 41 0 0.000

false easting (meters) 914401.82880

false northing (meters) 0.00000
5

ArcInfo coverage pat items:

ITEM NAME DESCRIPTION

AREA Area of polygon in square feet.

PERIMETER Perimeter of polygon in feet.

BEAR_?# Internal ID number.

BEAR_??-ID User ID number.

SIXHUC Sixth Order HUC ID number.

ECOPROV Ecoprovince Name.

CARCASS Carcass counts modeled by Battelle.

ROAD_DENS Road density in HUC in miles per square mile.

EASTWEST Delimits eastside and westside of CRB.

H1PCNT Percentage of Habitat-1 in Sixth Order HUC.

H2PCNT Percentage of Habitat-2 in Sixth Order HUC.

H3PCNT Percentage of Habitat-3 in Sixth Order HUC.

H4PCNT Percentage of Habitat-4 in Sixth Order HUC.

H5PCNT Percentage of Habitat-5 in Sixth Order HUC.

H6PCNT Percentage of Habitat-6 in Sixth Order HUC.

H7PCNT Percentage of Habitat-7 in Sixth Order HUC.

H8PCNT Percentage of Habitat-8 in Sixth Order HUC.

H9PCNT Percentage of Habitat-9 in Sixth Order HUC.

H10PCNT Percentage of Habitat-10 in Sixth Order HUC.

H11PCNT Percentage of Habitat-11 in Sixth Order HUC.

H12PCNT Percentage of Habitat-12 in Sixth Order HUC.

H13PCNT Percentage of Habitat-13 in Sixth Order HUC.

H14PCNT Percentage of Habitat-14 in Sixth Order HUC.

H15PCNT Percentage of Habitat-15 in Sixth Order HUC.

H16PCNT Percentage of Habitat-16 in Sixth Order HUC.

H17PCNT Percentage of Habitat-17 in Sixth Order HUC.

H18PCNT Percentage of Habitat-18 in Sixth Order HUC.

H19PCNT Percentage of Habitat-19 in Sixth Order HUC.

H20PCNT Percentage of Habitat-20 in Sixth Order HUC.

H21PCNT Percentage of Habitat-21 in Sixth Order HUC.

H22PCNT Percentage of Habitat-22 in Sixth Order HUC.

H23PCNT Percentage of Habitat-23 in Sixth Order HUC.

H24PCNT Percentage of Habitat-24 in Sixth Order HUC.

H25PCNT Percentage of Habitat-25 in Sixth Order HUC.

H26PCNT Percentage of Habitat-26 in Sixth Order HUC.

H27PCNT Percentage of Habitat-27 in Sixth Order HUC.

H28PCNT Percentage of Habitat-28 in Sixth Order HUC.

H29PCNT Percentage of Habitat-29 in Sixth Order HUC.

H30PCNT Percentage of Habitat-30 in Sixth Order HUC.

H31PCNT Percentage of Habitat-31 in Sixth Order HUC.

H32PCNT Percentage of Habitat-32 in Sixth Order HUC.

PRESENT Percentage of 'Present' habitats in HUC.

ASSOC Percentage of 'Associated' habitats in HUC.

RANGE_PCNT % of Bear-associated (PRESENT + ASSOCIATED)habitat in HUC.

RANGE_KEEP Binary tag to keep HUC based on associated habitats.

PRES_KEEP Binary tag to keep HUC based on %present and %associated.

URBAN_KEEP Binary tag to keep HUC based on amount of urban habitat.

AGRIC_KEEP Binary tag to keep HUC based on amount of agriculture.

PRELM_KEEP Binary tag to keep HUC based on preliminary analysis.

PRESENT_WT Weighted IBIS 'Present' habitats in HUC.

ASSOC_WT Weighted IBIS 'Generally Associated' habitats in HUC.

N Weighted percent NHI IBIS Occurrence index.

L Percent forest habitat in HUC.
6

C Cover variable in Habitat Assessment Method.

FE SAM Fe variable; weighted percent of IBIS feeding habitat.

S SAM S variable; absence/presence of salmon carcass.

F SAM F variable; food.

B_HIGH Percent of HUC with High berry index habitats.

B_MED Percent of HUC with Medium berry index habitats.

B_LOW Percent of HUC with Low berry index habitats.

B SAM B variable; overall berry index

RDDENS_WT Road density weighting factor for HUC.

U SAM U variable; percent urban in HUC.

A SAM A variable; percent agriculture in HUC.

H SAM H variable; human.

HCI SAM HCI variable; Habitat Condition Index.

HCI_SHADE HCI % used for display in ArcPlot.

C_SHADE C % used for display in ArcPlot.

F_SHADE F % used for display in ArcPlot.

H_SHADE H % used for display in ArcPlot.
7

Appendix A

Wildlife-Habitat Type Codes and Names

1 Mesic Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood

2 Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir

3 Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood

4 Montane Mixed Conifer

5 Interior Mixed Conifer

6 Lodgepole Pine Dominant

7 Ponderosa Pine Dominant

8 Upland Aspen

9 Subalpine Parkland

10 Alpine Grasslands and Shrublands

11 Westside Grasslands

12 Ceanothus-Manzanita Shrublands

13 Western Juniper

14 Canyon Shrublands

15 Interior Grasslands

16 Shrub-steppe

17 Dwarf shrub-steppe

18 Desert Playa and Salt Scrub

19 Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environs

20 Urban and Mixed Environs

21 Open Water

22 Herbaceous Wetlands

23 Westside Riparian - Wetlands

24 Montane Coniferous Wetlands

25 Interior Riparian - Wetlands

26 Coastal Dunes and Beaches

27 Coastal Headlands and Islets

28 Bays and Estuaries

29 Inland Marine Deeper Waters

30 Marine Nearshore

31 Marine Shelf

32 Oceanic
8

Appendix B

IBIS Habitat Association data for Black Bear

Species Habitat Habitat Activity Habitat Association Confidence

Black Bear 1 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 10 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 11 Feeds Present 2

Black Bear 12 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 13 Unsure Unsure

Black Bear 14* Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated* 3

Black Bear 15 Feeds Present 3

Black Bear 16 Feeds Present 1

Black Bear 17 Feeds Present 1

Black Bear 19 Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 2 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 20 Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 22 Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 23 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 24 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 25 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 27 Feeds Present 2

Black Bear 3 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 4 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 5 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 6 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 7 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 8 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Black Bear 9 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

* Used 'Present' instead of 'Generally Associated' in Habitat Assessment Method to compensate for inadequacies of 

mapped habitat 14 - Canyon Shrublands.
9

Appendix C

Berry Index for Black Bear:

Habitat Berry Importance Rank Weight

1 High 1.0

2 Medium 0.5

3 Medium 0.5

4 High 1.0

5 High 1.0

6 Medium 0.5

7 Medium 0.5

8 Medium 0.5

9 Medium 0.5

10 Medium 0.5

11 Medium 0.5

12 High 1.0

13 Medium 0.5

14 Medium 0.5

15 Medium 0.5

16 Medium 0.5

17 Medium 0.5

18 Low 0

19 Medium 0.5

20 Low 0

21 Low 0

22 Medium 0.5

23 Medium 0.5

24 High 1.0

25 Medium 0.5

26 Low 0

27 Medium 0.5

28 Low 0

29 Low 0

30 Low 0

31 Low 0

32 Low 0
1

Appendix F-2

Bald Eagle

Habitat Assessment Method

Summary

This document summarizes the steps taken by the Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) to produce Bald Eagle 

Habitat Condition Indexes (HCIs) for each 6th Order HUC in the Columbia River Basin. These procedures were 

applied for the current, normative, and three alternative conditions. Streamnet's 6th Order HUC ArcInfo polygon 

coverage was updated with several items to produce the initial COVER, FOOD, and HCI variables for the Bald Eagle 

Habitat Assessment Method. The first section describes the analysis methods including equations and weights used to 

derive the variables. The Arc Macro Language (AML) program written to calculate the variables can easily be 

modified and re-executed if the equations or weights need to be adjusted. The second section details the individual 

items found in the resulting coverages. Appendix A lists the 32 habitat codes and class names, and Appendix B 

contains NHI's Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS) habitat association data for the Bald Eagle.

Analysis

Preparation

A major portion of the Habitat Assessment Method depends on knowing the habitat composition of each 6th

Order HUC. These measurements were calculated using the NHI Current and Normative Wildlife-Habitat Types grids 

and Streamnet's 6th Order HUC coverage. Due to its large area extent and high 25m resolution, the Current habitat grid 

could not be converted to vector coverages without significant generalization of the data. Therefore, the HUC

coverage was converted to a grid and an AML was written to perform a Grid analysis of the HUC and habitat data sets. 

This AML calculated the percentage of each habitat type in each HUC and wrote these results into the original HUC 

coverage as items H1PCNT - H32PCNT where 1 - 32 equals the 32 habitat type codes(see Appendix A). The 

remainder of the analysis was completed in ArcInfo using the updated HUC coverages. The three alternative scenarios 

were run using habitat data modeled by Battelle, and Salmon carcass data was provided by Mobrand Biometrics.

Habitat Assessment Method

The Habitat Assessment Method consists of two major sections. The first is a preliminary screening of all 

HUCS. During this screening, HUCS are either included in or excluded from further analysis based on specific criteria. 

The second section calculates the Habitat Condition Index (HCI) for those HUCS that pass the preliminary screening

Preliminary Screening

The preliminary screening determines, for each 6th order HUC, if 40% or greater of the HUC is in the Bald 

Eagle's range. The Bald Eagle's range is established as any habitat type listed as 'Generally Associated' or 'Closely 

Associated' with the Bald Eagle in the NHI Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS) database (see Appendix 

B). Item RANGE_PCNT sums the percentages of all these-associated habitats per HUC. If RANGE_PCNT >= 40% 

for a HUC, item RANGE_KEEP is assigned a value of 1 for that HUC, otherwise its assigned 0.
2

Item PRELM_KEEP is added to summarize the results of the preliminary screening. If RANGE_KEEP, 

equals 1, then PRELM_KEEP is assigned a value of 1, otherwise its assigned a 0. The remainder of the analysis is 

only performed on HUCS where PRELM_KEEP equals 1.

Habitat Condition Index

The Habitat Condition Index consists of three main calculations: Cover, Food, and the HCI itself. This section 

describes each of these calculations.

Cover (C) is calculated by first calculating N, weighted percent NHI IBIS occurrence index. N is calculated 

by adding together items FCASS_WT, BGASS_WT, FGASS_WT and RGASS_WT. FCASS_WT equals the sum of 

the percentage of all 'Feeds' and 'Closely Associated' habitats (based on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 1.0. 

BGASS_WT equals the sum of the percentage of all 'Reproduces and Feeds' and 'Generally Associated' habitats (based 

on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 0.75. FGASS_WT equals the sum of the percentage of all 'Feeds' and 'Generally 

Associated' habitats (based on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 0.5. RGASS_WT equals the sum of the percentage of 

all 'Reproduces' and 'Generally Associated' habitats (based on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 0.25.

Next, WR, the water-riparian factor is calculated. The water-riparian factor is a weight assigned depending on 

the presence/absence of open water(W) and riparian(R) habitat types. For each HUC, if any amount of Open Water, 

Bays and Estuaries, Inland Marine Deeper Waters, or Marine Nearshore habitats are present, item W is calculated as 1, 

otherwise a 0. If Westside or Interior Riparian - Wetlands are present, item R is tagged with a 1, otherwise a 0. WR is 

then calculated for each HUC as a 1 if both W and R equaled 1, as a 0.5 if W or R is present but not both, and as 0 if 

both W and R equal 0.

Cover (C) is then calculated as (N * WR)1/2.

Food (F) equals (FEED + S) / 2. FEED is the weighted percent of feeding habitat based on IBIS data. All of 

the 'Feeds' and 'Reproduces and Feeds' habitats associated with Bald Eagle in IBIS are given a weight of 1.0. So the 

percentages of each of these habitat types are summed and multiplied by 1.0 to produce FEED. . Item S represents the 

presence of carcasses in a HUC based on the anadromous fish data (CARCASS) provided by Mobrand Biometrics. Any 

HUC with a CARCASS value of 0 is assigned an S value of 0, a CARCASS value of 15 is assigned an S value of 0.1, 

and a CARCASS value of 900 is assigned an S value of 1.0.

The Habitat Condition Index (HCI) is calculated using the previously derived variables and the following 

equation:

HCI = ( C + F ) / 2.
3

Data Description

This section contains projection information and item definitions for the final SAM Bald Eagle ArcInfo

coverages.

Projection info of ArcInfo coverage:

 Description of DOUBLE precision coverage eaglcurr

 FEATURE CLASSES

 Number of Attribute Spatial

Feature Class Subclass Features data (bytes) Index? Topology?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCS 21779 32

POLYGONS 7063 616 Yes

NODES 14720

 SECONDARY FEATURES

Tics 1194

Arc Segments 494875

Polygon Labels 7062

 TOLERANCES

Fuzzy = 1.000 V Dangle = 1.000 V

 COVERAGE BOUNDARY

Xmin = 1232814.903 Xmax = 4918643.000

Ymin = 47913.910 Ymax = 2937186.250

 STATUS

The coverage has not been Edited since the last BUILD or CLEAN.

 COORDINATE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Projection LAMBERT

Units FEET Spheroid CLARKE1866

Parameters:

1st standard parallel 42 20 0.000

2nd standard parallel 48 40 0.000

central meridian -117 0 0.00

latitude of projection's origin 41 0 0.000

false easting (meters) 914401.82880

false northing (meters) 0.00000
4

ArcInfo coverage pat items:

ITEM NAME DESCRIPTION

AREA Area of polygon in square feet.

PERIMETER Perimeter of polygon in feet.

EAGL????# Internal ID number.

EAGL????-ID User ID number.

SIXHUC Sixth Order HUC ID number.

ECOPROV Ecoprovince Name.

CARCASS Carcass counts modeled by Greg Blair, Mobrand Biometrics.

H1PCNT Percentage of Habitat-1 in Sixth Order HUC.

H2PCNT Percentage of Habitat-2 in Sixth Order HUC.

H3PCNT Percentage of Habitat-3 in Sixth Order HUC.

H4PCNT Percentage of Habitat-4 in Sixth Order HUC.

H5PCNT Percentage of Habitat-5 in Sixth Order HUC.

H6PCNT Percentage of Habitat-6 in Sixth Order HUC.

H7PCNT Percentage of Habitat-7 in Sixth Order HUC.

H8PCNT Percentage of Habitat-8 in Sixth Order HUC.

H9PCNT Percentage of Habitat-9 in Sixth Order HUC.

H10PCNT Percentage of Habitat-10 in Sixth Order HUC.

H11PCNT Percentage of Habitat-11 in Sixth Order HUC.

H12PCNT Percentage of Habitat-12 in Sixth Order HUC.

H13PCNT Percentage of Habitat-13 in Sixth Order HUC.

H14PCNT Percentage of Habitat-14 in Sixth Order HUC.

H15PCNT Percentage of Habitat-15 in Sixth Order HUC.

H16PCNT Percentage of Habitat-16 in Sixth Order HUC.

H17PCNT Percentage of Habitat-17 in Sixth Order HUC.

H18PCNT Percentage of Habitat-18 in Sixth Order HUC.

H19PCNT Percentage of Habitat-19 in Sixth Order HUC.

H20PCNT Percentage of Habitat-20 in Sixth Order HUC.

H21PCNT Percentage of Habitat-21 in Sixth Order HUC.

H22PCNT Percentage of Habitat-22 in Sixth Order HUC.

H23PCNT Percentage of Habitat-23 in Sixth Order HUC.

H24PCNT Percentage of Habitat-24 in Sixth Order HUC.

H25PCNT Percentage of Habitat-25 in Sixth Order HUC.

H26PCNT Percentage of Habitat-26 in Sixth Order HUC.

H27PCNT Percentage of Habitat-27 in Sixth Order HUC.

H28PCNT Percentage of Habitat-28 in Sixth Order HUC.

H29PCNT Percentage of Habitat-29 in Sixth Order HUC.

H30PCNT Percentage of Habitat-30 in Sixth Order HUC.

H31PCNT Percentage of Habitat-31 in Sixth Order HUC.

H32PCNT Percentage of Habitat-32 in Sixth Order HUC.

RANGE_PCNT Percent of Bald Eagle associated habitat in HUC.

RANGE_KEEP Binary tag to keep HUC based on associated habitats.

PRELM_KEEP Binary tag to keep HUC based on preliminary analysis.

FCASS_WT Weighted Feeds / Closely Associated habitats

BGASS_WT Weighted Reproduces and Feeds / Generally Associated habitats

FGASS_WT Weighted Feeds / Generally Associated habitats

RGASS_WT Weighted Reproduces / Generally Associated habitats

N Weighted percent NHI IBIS Occurrence index.

W Binary tag for HUCs with open water habitats.

R Binary tag for HUCs with riparian habitats

WR Water-Riparian factor for HUC.

C Cover variable in Habitat Assessment Method.

FEED SAM Fe variable; weighted percent of IBIS feeding habitat.
5

S SAM S variable; Weighted presence of salmon carcasses.

F SAM F variable; food.

HCI SAM HCI variable; Habitat Condition Index.

HCI_SHADE HCI % used for display in ArcPlot.

C_SHADE C % used for display in ArcPlot.

F_SHADE F % used for display in ArcPlot.
6

Appendix A

Wildlife-Habitat Type Codes and Names

1 Mesic Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood

2 Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir

3 Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood

4 Montane Mixed Conifer

5 Interior Mixed Conifer

6 Lodgepole Pine Dominant

7 Ponderosa Pine Dominant

8 Upland Aspen

9 Subalpine Parkland

10 Alpine Grasslands and Shrublands

11 Westside Grasslands

12 Ceanothus-Manzanita Shrublands

13 Western Juniper

14 Canyon Shrublands

15 Interior Grasslands

16 Shrub-steppe

17 Dwarf shrub-steppe

18 Desert Playa and Salt Scrub

19 Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environs

20 Urban and Mixed Environs

21 Open Water

22 Herbaceous Wetlands

23 Westside Riparian - Wetlands

24 Montane Coniferous Wetlands

25 Interior Riparian - Wetlands

26 Coastal Dunes and Beaches

27 Coastal Headlands and Islets

28 Bays and Estuaries

29 Inland Marine Deeper Waters

30 Marine Nearshore

31 Marine Shelf

32 Oceanic
7

Appendix B

IBIS Habitat Association data for Bald Eagle

Species Habitat Habitat Activity Habitat Association Confidence

Bald Eagle 1 Reproduces Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 2 Reproduces Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 3 Reproduces Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 4 Reproduces Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 5 Reproduces Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 6 Reproduces Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 7 Reproduces Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 11 Feeds Present 1

Bald Eagle 16 Reproduces Present 3

Bald Eagle 17 Reproduces Present 3

Bald Eagle 18 Feeds Present 3

Bald Eagle 19 Feeds Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 20 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 21 Feeds Closely Associated 3

Bald Eagle 22 Feeds Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 23 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 25 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 2

Bald Eagle 26 Feeds Present 3

Bald Eagle 27 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 28 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 29 Feeds Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 30 Feeds Generally Associated 3

Bald Eagle 31 Feeds Present 2
1

Appendix F-3

American Beaver

Habitat Assessment Method

Summary

This document summarizes the steps taken by the Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) to produce 

American Beaver Habitat Condition Indexes (HCIs) for each 6th Order HUC in the Columbia River Basin. 

These procedures were applied for the current, normative, and three alternative conditions. Streamnet's 

6th Order HUC ArcInfo polygon coverage was updated with several items to produce the initial COVER, 

FOOD, PHYSICAL CONDITION, and HCI variables for the American Beaver Habitat Assessment 

Method. The first section describes the analysis methods including equations and weights used to derive 

the variables. The Arc Macro Language (AML) program written to calculate the variables can easily be 

modified and re-executed if the equations or weights need to be adjusted. The second section details the 

individual items found in the resulting coverages. Appendix A lists the 32 habitat codes and class names, 

and Appendix B contains NHI's Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS) habitat association 

data for the American Beaver.

Analysis

Preparation

A major portion of the Habitat Assessment Method depends on knowing the habitat composition 

of each 6th Order HUC. These measurements were calculated using the NHI Current and Normative 

Wildlife-Habitat Types grids and Streamnet's 6th Order HUC coverage. Due to its large area extent and 

high 25m resolution, the Current habitat grid could not be converted to a vector coverage without 

significant generalization of the data. Therefore, the HUC coverage was converted to a grid and an AML 

was written to perform a Grid analysis of the HUC and habitat data sets. This AML calculated the 

percentage of each habitat type in each HUC and wrote these results into the original HUC coverage as 

items H1PCNT - H32PCNT where 1 - 32 equals the 32 habitat type codes(see Appendix A). The 

remainder of the analysis was completed in ArcInfo using the updated HUC coverages. 

Flow and sinuosity data were compiled and supplied to NHI by Battelle as well(see Habitat 

Condition Index section). Additionally, the three alternative scenarios were run using habitat data 

modeled by Battelle.

Habitat Assessment Method

The Habitat Assessment Method consists of two major sections. The first is a preliminary 

screening of all HUCS. During this screening, HUCS are either included in or excluded from further 

analysis based on specific criteria. The second section calculates the Habitat Condition Index (HCI) for 

those HUCS that pass the preliminary screening.
2

Preliminary Screening

The first step in the preliminary screening is to determine for each 6th order HUC if any of the 

HUC is in the American Beaver's range. The American Beaver's range was established as any habitat 

type that has a 'Generally Associated' or 'Closely Associated,' ranking with the American Beaver in the 

NHI Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS) database (see Appendix B). Habitats having a 

'Present' association were not included to minimize commission errors. Item RANGE_PCNT sums the 

percentages of all the-associated habitats per HUC; RANGE_KEEP sums only the 'Generally Associated' 

and 'Closely Associated' habitats. If RANGE_KEEP > 0% for a HUC, item PRELM_KEEP was assigned 

a value of 1 for that HUC, otherwise it was assigned 0. The remainder of the analysis was only performed 

on HUCS where PRELM_KEEP equals 1.

Habitat Condition Index

The Habitat Condition Index consists of four main calculations: Cover, Food, Physical Condition, 

and the HCI itself. This section describes each of these calculations.

Cover (C) was calculated by first calculating N, weighted percent NHI IBIS occurrence index, 

and L, a landscape factor. N was calculated by adding together items CLOSASC_WT, GENASC_WT 

and PRESENT_WT. CLOSASC_WT equals the sum of the percentage of all 'Closely Associated' 

habitats (based on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 1. GENASC_WT equals the sum of the percentage 

of all 'Generally Associated' habitats (based on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 0.66. PRESNT_WT 

equals the sum of the percentage of all 'Present' habitats (based on IBIS) multiplied by the weight of 0.33. 

To account for the negative impacts of agriculture and urban habitats on beaver, the landscape factor L 

was calculated as 1 minus the sum of urban(H20PCNT) and agricultural(H19PCNT) habitat. Item C 

represents Cover and was calculated as (L * N)1/2.

Food (F) equals the sum of the percentages of all feeding habitats based on IBIS data. All 

habitats associated with American Beaver in IBIS are feeding habitats with the exception of H21, Open 

Water. Therefore, F is calculated as RANGE_PCNT minus H21PCNT.

Physical Condition (P) is calculated as:

P = (FL + SI_WT) / 2.

Items FL and SI_WT represent flow and sinuosity, respectively. Flow is derived as :

FL = (AMFL_WT + FLWTYP_WT) / 2

AMFL_WT is a weighted average monthly flow estimate. Monthly flow for each HUC was 

provided by Batelle for each alternative. These flows were averaged(AVG_MF) and then rated on a scale 

of 0-1 using the following:

Average Monthly Flow Weight

>=3000 0

>=1000 & <3000 0.25

>=600 & <1000 0.5

>=300 & <600 1.0
3

>=100 & <300 0.5

>0 & <100 0.25

0 0

FLWTYP_WT is a weighting of the FLOW_TYPE (or Environment Type) that was provided by 

Batelle. The following chart explains the applied weighting system:

FLOW TYPE Description Weight

0 No type specified 0

1 Headwater 0.5

2 Low Stream Order 1.0

3 Mid Stream Order 0.5

4 High Stream Order 0.25

SI_WT contains weighted values derived from the SINUOSITY index values provided by 

Batelle. The following chart explains these values.

Sinuosity Index Weight

>=6 0.25

>=4 & <6 0.5

>=2 & <4 1.0

>=1 & <2 0.5

>0 & <1 0.25

0 0

The Habitat Condition Index (HCI) is calculated using the previously derived variables and the 

following equation:

HCI = ( C + F + P ) / 3 ).
4

Data Description

This section contains projection information and item definitions for the final SAM for American 

Beaver ArcInfo coverage.

Projection info of ArcInfo coverage:

 Description of DOUBLE precision coverage beavcurr

 FEATURE CLASSES

 Number of Attribute Spatial

Feature Class Subclass Features data (bytes) Index? Topology?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCS 21779 32

POLYGONS 7063 616 Yes

NODES 14720

 SECONDARY FEATURES

Tics 1194

Arc Segments 494875

Polygon Labels 7062

 TOLERANCES

Fuzzy = 1.000 V Dangle = 1.000 V

 COVERAGE BOUNDARY

Xmin = 1232814.903 Xmax = 4918643.000

Ymin = 47913.910 Ymax = 2937186.250

 STATUS

The coverage has not been Edited since the last BUILD or CLEAN.

 COORDINATE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Projection LAMBERT

Units FEET Spheroid CLARKE1866

Parameters:

1st standard parallel 42 20 0.000

2nd standard parallel 48 40 0.000

central meridian -117 0 0.00

latitude of projection's origin 41 0 0.000

false easting (meters) 914401.82880

false northing (meters) 0.00000
5

ArcInfo coverage pat items:

ITEM NAME DESCRIPTION

AREA Area of polygon in square feet.

PERIMETER Perimeter of polygon in feet.

BEAV????# Internal ID number.

BEAV????-ID User ID number.

SIXHUC Sixth Order HUC ID number.

ECOPROV Ecoprovince Name.

CARCASS Carcass counts modeled by Battelle.

ROAD_DENS Road density in HUC in miles per square mile.

EASTWEST Delimits eastside and westside of CRB.

H1PCNT Percentage of Habitat-1 in Sixth Order HUC.

H2PCNT Percentage of Habitat-2 in Sixth Order HUC.

H3PCNT Percentage of Habitat-3 in Sixth Order HUC.

H4PCNT Percentage of Habitat-4 in Sixth Order HUC.

H5PCNT Percentage of Habitat-5 in Sixth Order HUC.

H6PCNT Percentage of Habitat-6 in Sixth Order HUC.

H7PCNT Percentage of Habitat-7 in Sixth Order HUC.

H8PCNT Percentage of Habitat-8 in Sixth Order HUC.

H9PCNT Percentage of Habitat-9 in Sixth Order HUC.

H10PCNT Percentage of Habitat-10 in Sixth Order HUC.

H11PCNT Percentage of Habitat-11 in Sixth Order HUC.

H12PCNT Percentage of Habitat-12 in Sixth Order HUC.

H13PCNT Percentage of Habitat-13 in Sixth Order HUC.

H14PCNT Percentage of Habitat-14 in Sixth Order HUC.

H15PCNT Percentage of Habitat-15 in Sixth Order HUC.

H16PCNT Percentage of Habitat-16 in Sixth Order HUC.

H17PCNT Percentage of Habitat-17 in Sixth Order HUC.

H18PCNT Percentage of Habitat-18 in Sixth Order HUC.

H19PCNT Percentage of Habitat-19 in Sixth Order HUC.

H20PCNT Percentage of Habitat-20 in Sixth Order HUC.

H21PCNT Percentage of Habitat-21 in Sixth Order HUC.

H22PCNT Percentage of Habitat-22 in Sixth Order HUC.

H23PCNT Percentage of Habitat-23 in Sixth Order HUC.

H24PCNT Percentage of Habitat-24 in Sixth Order HUC.

H25PCNT Percentage of Habitat-25 in Sixth Order HUC.

H26PCNT Percentage of Habitat-26 in Sixth Order HUC.

H27PCNT Percentage of Habitat-27 in Sixth Order HUC.

H28PCNT Percentage of Habitat-28 in Sixth Order HUC.

H29PCNT Percentage of Habitat-29 in Sixth Order HUC.

H30PCNT Percentage of Habitat-30 in Sixth Order HUC.

H31PCNT Percentage of Habitat-31 in Sixth Order HUC.

H32PCNT Percentage of Habitat-32 in Sixth Order HUC.

SINUOSITY Sinuosity Index from Batelle.

AVG_MF Average monthly flow from Batelle

FLOW_TYPE Environment Type from Batelle

PRESENT Percentage of 'Present' habitats in HUC.

GENASC Percentage of 'Generally Associated' habitats in HUC.

CLOSASC Percentage of 'Closely Associated' habitats in HUC.

RANGE_PCNT % of Beaver-associated (PRESENT + GENASC + CLOSASC)habitat.

RANGE_KEEP GENASC + CLOSASC habitats in HUC.

PRELM_KEEP Binary tag to keep HUC based on preliminary analysis.

PRESENT_WT Weighted IBIS 'Present' habitats in HUC.

GENASC_WT Weighted IBIS 'Generally Associated' habitats in HUC.

CLOSAC_WT Weighted IBIS 'Closely Associated' habitats in HUC.
6

L Landuse -Percent Ag habitat in HUC..

N Weighted percent NHI IBIS Occurrence index.

C Cover variable in Habitat Assessment Method.

F SAM F variable; food.

FL SAM FL variable; Flow variable.

AMFL_WT Average Monthly flow weighted.

FLWTYP_WT Environmental Type weighted.

SI_WT Sinuosity Index weighted.

P P in Habitat Assessment Method - Physical Condition 

variable.

HCI SAM HCI variable; Habitat Condition Index.

HCI_SHADE HCI % used for display in ArcPlot.

C_SHADE C % used for display in ArcPlot.

F_SHADE F % used for display in ArcPlot.

P_SHADE P % used for display in ArcPlot.
7

Appendix A

Wildlife-Habitat Type Codes and Names

1 Mesic Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood

2 Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir

3 Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood

4 Montane Mixed Conifer

5 Interior Mixed Conifer

6 Lodgepole Pine Dominant

7 Ponderosa Pine Dominant

8 Upland Aspen

9 Subalpine Parkland

10 Alpine Grasslands and Shrublands

11 Westside Grasslands

12 Ceanothus-Manzanita Shrublands

13 Western Juniper

14 Canyon Shrublands

15 Interior Grasslands

16 Shrub-steppe

17 Dwarf shrub-steppe

18 Desert Playa and Salt Scrub

19 Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environs

20 Urban and Mixed Environs

21 Open Water

22 Herbaceous Wetlands

23 Westside Riparian - Wetlands

24 Montane Coniferous Wetlands

25 Interior Riparian - Wetlands

26 Coastal Dunes and Beaches

27 Coastal Headlands and Islets

28 Bays and Estuaries

29 Inland Marine Deeper Waters

30 Marine Nearshore

31 Marine Shelf

32 Oceanic
8

Appendix B

IBIS Habitat Association data for American Beaver

Species Habitat Habitat Activity Habitat Association Confidence

American Beaver 1 Feeds Generally Associated 3

American Beaver 2 Feeds Generally Associated 3

American Beaver 3 Feeds Generally Associated 3

American Beaver 4 Feeds Generally Associated 3

American Beaver 5 Feeds Generally Associated 3

American Beaver 6 Feeds Generally Associated* 3

American Beaver 7 Feeds Generally Associated 3

American Beaver 8 Feeds Present 3

American Beaver 13 Feeds Present 1

American Beaver 19 Feeds Present 2

American Beaver 20 Feeds Present 2

American Beaver 21 Reproduces Closely Associated 3

American Beaver 22 Reproduces and Feeds Closely Associated 3

American Beaver 23 Reproduces and Feeds Closely Associated 3

American Beaver 24 Reproduces and Feeds Generally Associated 3

American Beaver 25 Reproduces and Feeds Closely Associated 3
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Code Strategy Name Alkalinity Bed scour Ben hos diversity 

and production Channel length

Channel width - 

month maximum 

width (ft)

Channel width - 

month minimum 

width (ft)

Confinement - 

Hydro-modifications

Confinement - 

natural Dissolved oxygen

Hab-1.0

Reduce agricultural impacts to 

ripanian/ aquatic ecosystem 1 1 2 1 2

Hab-2.0 Competitor control

Hab-3.0 Sediment reduction 1 1

Hab-4.0 Floodplain corridor reconnection 2

Hab-5.0

Regulate tributary storage releases to 

provide normative flows. 2

Hab-6.0

Reduce forestry impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem 1 1

Hab-7.0 Agricultural water conserva ion 2

Hab-8.0 Irrigation waste water treatment 1

Hab-9.0 Irrigation withdrawals screening

Hab-10.0 Municipal waste management 1 1

Hab-11.0

Nutrient and pa hogen load reduction 

from grazing/agriculture 1

Hab-12.0 Obstruction passage improvement

Hab-13.0 Obstruction removal

Hab-14.0 Pesticide/herbicide reduction 2

Hab-15.0 Reintroduction of species

Hab-16.0 Predator control

Hab-16.1 Control predatory fish

Hab-16.2 Control predatory birds

Hab-16.3 Control mammalian predators

Hab-17.0

Reduce grazing impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem 1 1 2 1 2

Hab-18.0

Establish aquatic reserves, preserves, 

refugia

Hab-18.1

Establish terrestrial reserves, 

preserves, refugia

Habitat / Page 1 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hab-1.0

Reduce agricultural impacts to 

ripanian/ aquatic ecosystem

Hab-2.0 Competitor control

Hab-3.0 Sediment reduction

Hab-4.0 Floodplain corridor reconnection

Hab-5.0

Regulate tributary storage releases to 

provide normative flows.

Hab-6.0

Reduce forestry impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem

Hab-7.0 Agricultural water conserva ion

Hab-8.0 Irrigation waste water treatment

Hab-9.0 Irrigation withdrawals screening

Hab-10.0 Municipal waste management

Hab-11.0

Nutrient and pa hogen load reduction 

from grazing/agriculture

Hab-12.0 Obstruction passage improvement

Hab-13.0 Obstruction removal

Hab-14.0 Pesticide/herbicide reduction

Hab-15.0 Reintroduction of species

Hab-16.0 Predator control

Hab-16.1 Control predatory fish

Hab-16.2 Control predatory birds

Hab-16.3 Control mammalian predators

Hab-17.0

Reduce grazing impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem

Hab-18.0

Establish aquatic reserves, preserves, 

refugia

Hab-18.1

Establish terrestrial reserves, 

preserves, refugia

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Embeddedness Fine sediment Fish community 

richness Fish pa hogens Fish species introductions

Flow - change in 

interannual 

variability in high 

flows

Flow - changes in 

interannual 

variability in low 

flows

Flow - Intra daily 

(diel) varia ion

Flow - intra-annual 

flow pattern

1 1 1 1 1

1 1

2

2

1 1 1

2

2 2

2 2 1 1 1

Habitat / Page 2 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hab-1.0

Reduce agricultural impacts to 

ripanian/ aquatic ecosystem

Hab-2.0 Competitor control

Hab-3.0 Sediment reduction

Hab-4.0 Floodplain corridor reconnection

Hab-5.0

Regulate tributary storage releases to 

provide normative flows.

Hab-6.0

Reduce forestry impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem

Hab-7.0 Agricultural water conserva ion

Hab-8.0 Irrigation waste water treatment

Hab-9.0 Irrigation withdrawals screening

Hab-10.0 Municipal waste management

Hab-11.0

Nutrient and pa hogen load reduction 

from grazing/agriculture

Hab-12.0 Obstruction passage improvement

Hab-13.0 Obstruction removal

Hab-14.0 Pesticide/herbicide reduction

Hab-15.0 Reintroduction of species

Hab-16.0 Predator control

Hab-16.1 Control predatory fish

Hab-16.2 Control predatory birds

Hab-16.3 Control mammalian predators

Hab-17.0

Reduce grazing impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem

Hab-18.0

Establish aquatic reserves, preserves, 

refugia

Hab-18.1

Establish terrestrial reserves, 

preserves, refugia

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Gradient Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - 

beaver ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder 

riffles

Habitat type - offchannel habitat 

factor

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - 

primary pools

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles Harassment

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1

Habitat / Page 3 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hab-1.0

Reduce agricultural impacts to 

ripanian/ aquatic ecosystem

Hab-2.0 Competitor control

Hab-3.0 Sediment reduction

Hab-4.0 Floodplain corridor reconnection

Hab-5.0

Regulate tributary storage releases to 

provide normative flows.

Hab-6.0

Reduce forestry impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem

Hab-7.0 Agricultural water conserva ion

Hab-8.0 Irrigation waste water treatment

Hab-9.0 Irrigation withdrawals screening

Hab-10.0 Municipal waste management

Hab-11.0

Nutrient and pa hogen load reduction 

from grazing/agriculture

Hab-12.0 Obstruction passage improvement

Hab-13.0 Obstruction removal

Hab-14.0 Pesticide/herbicide reduction

Hab-15.0 Reintroduction of species

Hab-16.0 Predator control

Hab-16.1 Control predatory fish

Hab-16.2 Control predatory birds

Hab-16.3 Control mammalian predators

Hab-17.0

Reduce grazing impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem

Hab-18.0

Establish aquatic reserves, preserves, 

refugia

Hab-18.1

Establish terrestrial reserves, 

preserves, refugia

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Hatchery fish 

outplants

Hydrologic regime - 

natural

Hydrologic regime - 

regulated Icing Metals/Pollutants - in sediments/soils

Metals - in water 

column

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column

Nutrient enrichment Obstructions to fish 

migration

2 1

2

1 1

1 1

1 1

3

4

2

2 1

Habitat / Page 4 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hab-1.0

Reduce agricultural impacts to 

ripanian/ aquatic ecosystem

Hab-2.0 Competitor control

Hab-3.0 Sediment reduction

Hab-4.0 Floodplain corridor reconnection

Hab-5.0

Regulate tributary storage releases to 

provide normative flows.

Hab-6.0

Reduce forestry impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem

Hab-7.0 Agricultural water conserva ion

Hab-8.0 Irrigation waste water treatment

Hab-9.0 Irrigation withdrawals screening

Hab-10.0 Municipal waste management

Hab-11.0

Nutrient and pa hogen load reduction 

from grazing/agriculture

Hab-12.0 Obstruction passage improvement

Hab-13.0 Obstruction removal

Hab-14.0 Pesticide/herbicide reduction

Hab-15.0 Reintroduction of species

Hab-16.0 Predator control

Hab-16.1 Control predatory fish

Hab-16.2 Control predatory birds

Hab-16.3 Control mammalian predators

Hab-17.0

Reduce grazing impacts to ripanian/ 

aqua ic ecosystem

Hab-18.0

Establish aquatic reserves, preserves, 

refugia

Hab-18.1

Establish terrestrial reserves, 

preserves, refugia

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Predation risk Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by 

month)

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by 

month)

Temperature - 

spatial variation Turbidity Water withdrawals Wood

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1

2

3

2

2

2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1

Habitat / Page 5 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Code Strategy Name Alkalinity Bed scour Ben hos diversity 

and production Channel length

Channel width - 

month maximum 

width (ft)

Channel width - 

month minimum 

width (ft)

Confinement - 

Hydro-modifications

Confinement - 

natural Dissolved oxygen

Hab-19.0

Manage land use and riparian 

conditions to maintain water quality 1 1

Hab-20.0 Road management 1 1 2

Hab-21.0 Habitat fertilization 1

Hab-22.0 Tributary gravel supply enhancment

Hab-23.0 Tributary wood supply enhancement

Hab-24.0 Urban storm runoff control 1

Hab-25.0

Groundwater management to 

maintain flow

Hab-26.0

Connect lower tributaries and 

mainstem habitat 1

Hab-27.0

Link terrestrial and aquatic preserves 

and refugia

Hab-28.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

tribal and public lands while allowing 

restricted use.

Hab-29.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

private lands while allowing restricted 

use.

Hab-30.0 Passive habitat restoration. 2

Hab-31.0 Ac ive habitat restoration 1

Hab-32.0 Halt new water withdrawal permits

Hab-33.0

Reduce existing permits for water 

withdrawal

Hab-34.0

Encourage cul ivation of less waterintensive crops

Hab-35.0

and o her measures to restore 

estuarine habitats. 2

Hab-36.0

Manage dredging toavoid increasing 

predation.

Hab-37.0

Develop habitats to link terrestrial 

preserves and refugia

Hab-38.0

Protect high quality terrestrial habitats 

while allowing restricted use.

Habitat / Page 6 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hab-19.0

Manage land use and riparian 

conditions to maintain water quality

Hab-20.0 Road management 

Hab-21.0 Habitat fertilization

Hab-22.0 Tributary gravel supply enhancment

Hab-23.0 Tributary wood supply enhancement

Hab-24.0 Urban storm runoff control

Hab-25.0

Groundwater management to 

maintain flow

Hab-26.0

Connect lower tributaries and 

mainstem habitat

Hab-27.0

Link terrestrial and aquatic preserves 

and refugia

Hab-28.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

tribal and public lands while allowing 

restricted use.

Hab-29.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

private lands while allowing restricted 

use.

Hab-30.0 Passive habitat restoration.

Hab-31.0 Ac ive habitat restoration

Hab-32.0 Halt new water withdrawal permits

Hab-33.0

Reduce existing permits for water 

withdrawal

Hab-34.0

Encourage cul ivation of less waterintensive crops

Hab-35.0

and o her measures to restore 

estuarine habitats.

Hab-36.0

Manage dredging toavoid increasing 

predation.

Hab-37.0

Develop habitats to link terrestrial 

preserves and refugia

Hab-38.0

Protect high quality terrestrial habitats 

while allowing restricted use.

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Embeddedness Fine sediment Fish community 

richness Fish pa hogens Fish species introductions

Flow - change in 

interannual 

variability in high 

flows

Flow - changes in 

interannual 

variability in low 

flows

Flow - Intra daily 

(diel) varia ion

Flow - intra-annual 

flow pattern

2

2 2 1 1

1 1 2 2

1

2

2 2

1 1

1

1 1 1

Habitat / Page 7 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hab-19.0

Manage land use and riparian 

conditions to maintain water quality

Hab-20.0 Road management 

Hab-21.0 Habitat fertilization

Hab-22.0 Tributary gravel supply enhancment

Hab-23.0 Tributary wood supply enhancement

Hab-24.0 Urban storm runoff control

Hab-25.0

Groundwater management to 

maintain flow

Hab-26.0

Connect lower tributaries and 

mainstem habitat

Hab-27.0

Link terrestrial and aquatic preserves 

and refugia

Hab-28.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

tribal and public lands while allowing 

restricted use.

Hab-29.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

private lands while allowing restricted 

use.

Hab-30.0 Passive habitat restoration.

Hab-31.0 Ac ive habitat restoration

Hab-32.0 Halt new water withdrawal permits

Hab-33.0

Reduce existing permits for water 

withdrawal

Hab-34.0

Encourage cul ivation of less waterintensive crops

Hab-35.0

and o her measures to restore 

estuarine habitats.

Hab-36.0

Manage dredging toavoid increasing 

predation.

Hab-37.0

Develop habitats to link terrestrial 

preserves and refugia

Hab-38.0

Protect high quality terrestrial habitats 

while allowing restricted use.

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Gradient Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - 

beaver ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder 

riffles

Habitat type - offchannel habitat 

factor

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - 

primary pools

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles Harassment

1 1 1

2

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2

Habitat / Page 8 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hab-19.0

Manage land use and riparian 

conditions to maintain water quality

Hab-20.0 Road management 

Hab-21.0 Habitat fertilization

Hab-22.0 Tributary gravel supply enhancment

Hab-23.0 Tributary wood supply enhancement

Hab-24.0 Urban storm runoff control

Hab-25.0

Groundwater management to 

maintain flow

Hab-26.0

Connect lower tributaries and 

mainstem habitat

Hab-27.0

Link terrestrial and aquatic preserves 

and refugia

Hab-28.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

tribal and public lands while allowing 

restricted use.

Hab-29.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

private lands while allowing restricted 

use.

Hab-30.0 Passive habitat restoration.

Hab-31.0 Ac ive habitat restoration

Hab-32.0 Halt new water withdrawal permits

Hab-33.0

Reduce existing permits for water 

withdrawal

Hab-34.0

Encourage cul ivation of less waterintensive crops

Hab-35.0

and o her measures to restore 

estuarine habitats.

Hab-36.0

Manage dredging toavoid increasing 

predation.

Hab-37.0

Develop habitats to link terrestrial 

preserves and refugia

Hab-38.0

Protect high quality terrestrial habitats 

while allowing restricted use.

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Hatchery fish 

outplants

Hydrologic regime - 

natural

Hydrologic regime - 

regulated Icing Metals/Pollutants - in sediments/soils

Metals - in water 

column

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column

Nutrient enrichment Obstructions to fish 

migration

2 2

Habitat / Page 9 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hab-19.0

Manage land use and riparian 

conditions to maintain water quality

Hab-20.0 Road management 

Hab-21.0 Habitat fertilization

Hab-22.0 Tributary gravel supply enhancment

Hab-23.0 Tributary wood supply enhancement

Hab-24.0 Urban storm runoff control

Hab-25.0

Groundwater management to 

maintain flow

Hab-26.0

Connect lower tributaries and 

mainstem habitat

Hab-27.0

Link terrestrial and aquatic preserves 

and refugia

Hab-28.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

tribal and public lands while allowing 

restricted use.

Hab-29.0

Protect high quality aquatic habitat on 

private lands while allowing restricted 

use.

Hab-30.0 Passive habitat restoration.

Hab-31.0 Ac ive habitat restoration

Hab-32.0 Halt new water withdrawal permits

Hab-33.0

Reduce existing permits for water 

withdrawal

Hab-34.0

Encourage cul ivation of less waterintensive crops

Hab-35.0

and o her measures to restore 

estuarine habitats.

Hab-36.0

Manage dredging toavoid increasing 

predation.

Hab-37.0

Develop habitats to link terrestrial 

preserves and refugia

Hab-38.0

Protect high quality terrestrial habitats 

while allowing restricted use.

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Predation risk Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by 

month)

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by 

month)

Temperature - 

spatial variation Turbidity Water withdrawals Wood

2 2 2 2 2 1

1 2 2

1

2

1 1 1

2 2

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

2

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

2

1 1

Habitat / Page 10 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Code Strategy Name Alkalinity Bed scour Ben hos diversity 

and production Channel length

Channel width - 

month maximum 

width (ft)

Channel width - 

month minimum 

width (ft)

Confinement - 

Hydro-modifications

Confinement - 

natural Dissolved oxygen

Hab-39.0 Limit size and frequency of clearcuts 2

Hab-40.0 Normative fire frequency

Hab-41.0

Develop normative forest age 

structure and species composition

Hab-42.0 Provide gradual forest ecotones

Hab-43.0 Reduce forest road density 1

Hab-44.0

Build storage reservoir to provide 

downstream flow

Hab-45.0 Improve mining discharges

Hab-46.0 Improve mining practices

Hab-47.0

Rehabilitate marginal and closed 

mines

Habitat / Page 11 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hab-39.0 Limit size and frequency of clearcuts

Hab-40.0 Normative fire frequency

Hab-41.0

Develop normative forest age 

structure and species composition

Hab-42.0 Provide gradual forest ecotones

Hab-43.0 Reduce forest road density

Hab-44.0

Build storage reservoir to provide 

downstream flow

Hab-45.0 Improve mining discharges

Hab-46.0 Improve mining practices

Hab-47.0

Rehabilitate marginal and closed 

mines

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Embeddedness Fine sediment Fish community 

richness Fish pa hogens Fish species introductions

Flow - change in 

interannual 

variability in high 

flows

Flow - changes in 

interannual 

variability in low 

flows

Flow - Intra daily 

(diel) varia ion

Flow - intra-annual 

flow pattern

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

Habitat / Page 12 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hab-39.0 Limit size and frequency of clearcuts

Hab-40.0 Normative fire frequency

Hab-41.0

Develop normative forest age 

structure and species composition

Hab-42.0 Provide gradual forest ecotones

Hab-43.0 Reduce forest road density

Hab-44.0

Build storage reservoir to provide 

downstream flow

Hab-45.0 Improve mining discharges

Hab-46.0 Improve mining practices

Hab-47.0

Rehabilitate marginal and closed 

mines

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Gradient Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - 

beaver ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder 

riffles

Habitat type - offchannel habitat 

factor

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - 

primary pools

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles Harassment

2 2 2 2 2

Habitat / Page 13 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hab-39.0 Limit size and frequency of clearcuts

Hab-40.0 Normative fire frequency

Hab-41.0

Develop normative forest age 

structure and species composition

Hab-42.0 Provide gradual forest ecotones

Hab-43.0 Reduce forest road density

Hab-44.0

Build storage reservoir to provide 

downstream flow

Hab-45.0 Improve mining discharges

Hab-46.0 Improve mining practices

Hab-47.0

Rehabilitate marginal and closed 

mines

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Hatchery fish 

outplants

Hydrologic regime - 

natural

Hydrologic regime - 

regulated Icing Metals/Pollutants - in sediments/soils

Metals - in water 

column

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column

Nutrient enrichment Obstructions to fish 

migration

Habitat / Page 14 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hab-39.0 Limit size and frequency of clearcuts

Hab-40.0 Normative fire frequency

Hab-41.0

Develop normative forest age 

structure and species composition

Hab-42.0 Provide gradual forest ecotones

Hab-43.0 Reduce forest road density

Hab-44.0

Build storage reservoir to provide 

downstream flow

Hab-45.0 Improve mining discharges

Hab-46.0 Improve mining practices

Hab-47.0

Rehabilitate marginal and closed 

mines

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Predation risk Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by 

month)

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by 

month)

Temperature - 

spatial variation Turbidity Water withdrawals Wood

2 2

1 1

2

1

1 1

Habitat / Page 15 of 15
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Code Strategy Name Alkalinity Bed scour Ben hos diversity 

and production Channel length

Channel width - 

month maximum 

width (ft)

Channel width - 

month minimum 

width (ft)

Confinement - 

Hydro-modifications

Confinement - 

natural Dissolved oxygen

Har-1.0 Harvest elimination

Har-2.0 Harvest reduction

Har-3.0 MSY harvest management

Har-4.0 Selective fisheries

Har-5.0 Focus sport or C&S fisheries

Har-6.0 Weakest population harvest rate 

Har-7.0 Weakest metapopulation harvest rate

Har-8.0

Manage overall harvest rate to meet 

escapement needs

Har-9.0 Use "new" harvest techniques

Har-10.0 Develop aquaculture

Har-11.0 Weakest aggregate harvest rate

Harvest / Page 16 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Har-1.0 Harvest elimination

Har-2.0 Harvest reduction

Har-3.0 MSY harvest management

Har-4.0 Selective fisheries

Har-5.0 Focus sport or C&S fisheries

Har-6.0 Weakest population harvest rate 

Har-7.0 Weakest metapopulation harvest rate

Har-8.0

Manage overall harvest rate to meet 

escapement needs

Har-9.0 Use "new" harvest techniques

Har-10.0 Develop aquaculture

Har-11.0 Weakest aggregate harvest rate

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Embeddedness Fine sediment Fish community 

richness Fish pa hogens Fish species introductions

Flow - change in 

interannual 

variability in high 

flows

Flow - changes in 

interannual 

variability in low 

flows

Flow - Intra daily 

(diel) varia ion

Flow - intra-annual 

flow pattern

Harvest / Page 17 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Har-1.0 Harvest elimination

Har-2.0 Harvest reduction

Har-3.0 MSY harvest management

Har-4.0 Selective fisheries

Har-5.0 Focus sport or C&S fisheries

Har-6.0 Weakest population harvest rate 

Har-7.0 Weakest metapopulation harvest rate

Har-8.0

Manage overall harvest rate to meet 

escapement needs

Har-9.0 Use "new" harvest techniques

Har-10.0 Develop aquaculture

Har-11.0 Weakest aggregate harvest rate

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Gradient Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - 

beaver ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder 

riffles

Habitat type - offchannel habitat 

factor

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - 

primary pools

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles Harassment

Harvest / Page 18 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Har-1.0 Harvest elimination

Har-2.0 Harvest reduction

Har-3.0 MSY harvest management

Har-4.0 Selective fisheries

Har-5.0 Focus sport or C&S fisheries

Har-6.0 Weakest population harvest rate 

Har-7.0 Weakest metapopulation harvest rate

Har-8.0

Manage overall harvest rate to meet 

escapement needs

Har-9.0 Use "new" harvest techniques

Har-10.0 Develop aquaculture

Har-11.0 Weakest aggregate harvest rate

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Hatchery fish 

outplants

Hydrologic regime - 

natural

Hydrologic regime - 

regulated Icing Metals/Pollutants - in sediments/soils

Metals - in water 

column

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column

Nutrient enrichment Obstructions to fish 

migration

Harvest / Page 19 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Har-1.0 Harvest elimination

Har-2.0 Harvest reduction

Har-3.0 MSY harvest management

Har-4.0 Selective fisheries

Har-5.0 Focus sport or C&S fisheries

Har-6.0 Weakest population harvest rate 

Har-7.0 Weakest metapopulation harvest rate

Har-8.0

Manage overall harvest rate to meet 

escapement needs

Har-9.0 Use "new" harvest techniques

Har-10.0 Develop aquaculture

Har-11.0 Weakest aggregate harvest rate

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Predation risk Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by 

month)

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by 

month)

Temperature - 

spatial variation Turbidity Water withdrawals Wood

Harvest / Page 20 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Code Strategy Name Alkalinity Bed scour Ben hos diversity 

and production Channel length

Channel width - 

month maximum 

width (ft)

Channel width - 

month minimum 

width (ft)

Confinement - 

Hydro-modifications

Confinement - 

natural Dissolved oxygen

Hat-1.0

Incorporate wild fish into hatchery 

broodstocks

Hat-2.0

Use natural population as a template 

for hatchery.

Hat-3.0

Provide emergency preservation of 

gene ic resources 

Hat-4.0 Phase out hatchery production

Hat-5.0 Expand hatchery production

Hat-6.0 Reduce hatchery production

Hat-7.0

Use wild fish emulation techniques in 

hatchery.

Hat-8.0

Reduce spread of hatchery pathogens 

to wild

Hat-9.0 Supplement natural production

Hat-10.0

Reintroduce progeny of captive brood 

fish back into habitat

Hat-11.0 Provide mi iga ion hatcheries

Hat-12.0 Deveop augmenta ion hatchery.

Hatcheries / Page 21 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hat-1.0

Incorporate wild fish into hatchery 

broodstocks

Hat-2.0

Use natural population as a template 

for hatchery.

Hat-3.0

Provide emergency preservation of 

gene ic resources 

Hat-4.0 Phase out hatchery production

Hat-5.0 Expand hatchery production

Hat-6.0 Reduce hatchery production

Hat-7.0

Use wild fish emulation techniques in 

hatchery.

Hat-8.0

Reduce spread of hatchery pathogens 

to wild

Hat-9.0 Supplement natural production

Hat-10.0

Reintroduce progeny of captive brood 

fish back into habitat

Hat-11.0 Provide mi iga ion hatcheries

Hat-12.0 Deveop augmenta ion hatchery.

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Embeddedness Fine sediment Fish community 

richness Fish pa hogens Fish species introductions

Flow - change in 

interannual 

variability in high 

flows

Flow - changes in 

interannual 

variability in low 

flows

Flow - Intra daily 

(diel) varia ion

Flow - intra-annual 

flow pattern

Hatcheries / Page 22 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hat-1.0

Incorporate wild fish into hatchery 

broodstocks

Hat-2.0

Use natural population as a template 

for hatchery.

Hat-3.0

Provide emergency preservation of 

gene ic resources 

Hat-4.0 Phase out hatchery production

Hat-5.0 Expand hatchery production

Hat-6.0 Reduce hatchery production

Hat-7.0

Use wild fish emulation techniques in 

hatchery.

Hat-8.0

Reduce spread of hatchery pathogens 

to wild

Hat-9.0 Supplement natural production

Hat-10.0

Reintroduce progeny of captive brood 

fish back into habitat

Hat-11.0 Provide mi iga ion hatcheries

Hat-12.0 Deveop augmenta ion hatchery.

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Gradient Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - 

beaver ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder 

riffles

Habitat type - offchannel habitat 

factor

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - 

primary pools

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles Harassment

Hatcheries / Page 23 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hat-1.0

Incorporate wild fish into hatchery 

broodstocks

Hat-2.0

Use natural population as a template 

for hatchery.

Hat-3.0

Provide emergency preservation of 

gene ic resources 

Hat-4.0 Phase out hatchery production

Hat-5.0 Expand hatchery production

Hat-6.0 Reduce hatchery production

Hat-7.0

Use wild fish emulation techniques in 

hatchery.

Hat-8.0

Reduce spread of hatchery pathogens 

to wild

Hat-9.0 Supplement natural production

Hat-10.0

Reintroduce progeny of captive brood 

fish back into habitat

Hat-11.0 Provide mi iga ion hatcheries

Hat-12.0 Deveop augmenta ion hatchery.

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Hatchery fish 

outplants

Hydrologic regime - 

natural

Hydrologic regime - 

regulated Icing Metals/Pollutants - in sediments/soils

Metals - in water 

column

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column

Nutrient enrichment Obstructions to fish 

migration

-5

-5

-5

Hatcheries / Page 24 of 5
Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hat-1.0

Incorporate wild fish into hatchery 

broodstocks

Hat-2.0

Use natural population as a template 

for hatchery.

Hat-3.0

Provide emergency preservation of 

gene ic resources 

Hat-4.0 Phase out hatchery production

Hat-5.0 Expand hatchery production

Hat-6.0 Reduce hatchery production

Hat-7.0

Use wild fish emulation techniques in 

hatchery.

Hat-8.0

Reduce spread of hatchery pathogens 

to wild

Hat-9.0 Supplement natural production

Hat-10.0

Reintroduce progeny of captive brood 

fish back into habitat

Hat-11.0 Provide mi iga ion hatcheries

Hat-12.0 Deveop augmenta ion hatchery.

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Predation risk Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by 

month)

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by 

month)

Temperature - 

spatial variation Turbidity Water withdrawals Wood

Hatcheries / Page 25 of 5
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Code Strategy Name Alkalinity Bed scour Ben hos diversity 

and production Channel length

Channel width - 

month maximum 

width (ft)

Channel width - 

month minimum 

width (ft)

Confinement - 

Hydro-modifications

Confinement - 

natural Dissolved oxygen

Hyd-1.0

Channel maintenance flows below 

dam

Hyd-2.0

Convert storage reservoir to run-ofriver reservoir

Hyd-3.0 Breach a dam

Hyd-4.0

Provide alternative fish passage 

structures and operations to minimize 

life history selection

Hyd-5.0

Discourage proliferation of shad via 

adult passage facilities

Hyd-6.0

Operate juvenile fish passage 

facilities year round

Hyd-7.0 Dam drawdwon

Hyd-8.0

Manage spill to minimize dissolved 

gas

Hyd-9.0 Minimize daily flow fluctuations 

Hyd-10.0 Normative seasonal flow and flooding 1

Hyd-11.0

Provide gravel and organic debris in 

unimpounded mainstem areas

Hyd-12.0

Design and implement bypass 

structures to reflect biological 

characteristics

Hyd-13.0

Operate adult passage facilities yearround

Hyd-14.0

Provide flow to re-establish normative 

estuarine and plume and salinity 

conditions.

Hyd-15.0

Remove economically marginal dams 

on tributaries that block anadromous 

passage

Hyd-16.0

Restore passage for anadromous fish 

above blockages

Hyd-17.0

Operate adult passage facilities on an 

extended schedule

Hyd-18.0

Operate juvenile passage facilities on 

an extended schedule

Hyd-19.0

Maximize transport downstream 

juvenile salmonid migrants

Hyd-20.0

Use "Share the risk" transportation 

policy for juvenile salmonids

Hydro / Page 26 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hyd-1.0

Channel maintenance flows below 

dam

Hyd-2.0

Convert storage reservoir to run-ofriver reservoir

Hyd-3.0 Breach a dam

Hyd-4.0

Provide alternative fish passage 

structures and operations to minimize 

life history selection

Hyd-5.0

Discourage proliferation of shad via 

adult passage facilities

Hyd-6.0

Operate juvenile fish passage 

facilities year round

Hyd-7.0 Dam drawdwon

Hyd-8.0

Manage spill to minimize dissolved 

gas

Hyd-9.0 Minimize daily flow fluctuations 

Hyd-10.0 Normative seasonal flow and flooding

Hyd-11.0

Provide gravel and organic debris in 

unimpounded mainstem areas

Hyd-12.0

Design and implement bypass 

structures to reflect biological 

characteristics

Hyd-13.0

Operate adult passage facilities yearround

Hyd-14.0

Provide flow to re-establish normative 

estuarine and plume and salinity 

conditions.

Hyd-15.0

Remove economically marginal dams 

on tributaries that block anadromous 

passage

Hyd-16.0

Restore passage for anadromous fish 

above blockages

Hyd-17.0

Operate adult passage facilities on an 

extended schedule

Hyd-18.0

Operate juvenile passage facilities on 

an extended schedule

Hyd-19.0

Maximize transport downstream 

juvenile salmonid migrants

Hyd-20.0

Use "Share the risk" transportation 

policy for juvenile salmonids

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Embeddedness Fine sediment Fish community 

richness Fish pa hogens Fish species introductions

Flow - change in 

interannual 

variability in high 

flows

Flow - changes in 

interannual 

variability in low 

flows

Flow - Intra daily 

(diel) varia ion

Flow - intra-annual 

flow pattern

3

Hydro / Page 27 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hyd-1.0

Channel maintenance flows below 

dam

Hyd-2.0

Convert storage reservoir to run-ofriver reservoir

Hyd-3.0 Breach a dam

Hyd-4.0

Provide alternative fish passage 

structures and operations to minimize 

life history selection

Hyd-5.0

Discourage proliferation of shad via 

adult passage facilities

Hyd-6.0

Operate juvenile fish passage 

facilities year round

Hyd-7.0 Dam drawdwon

Hyd-8.0

Manage spill to minimize dissolved 

gas

Hyd-9.0 Minimize daily flow fluctuations 

Hyd-10.0 Normative seasonal flow and flooding

Hyd-11.0

Provide gravel and organic debris in 

unimpounded mainstem areas

Hyd-12.0

Design and implement bypass 

structures to reflect biological 

characteristics

Hyd-13.0

Operate adult passage facilities yearround

Hyd-14.0

Provide flow to re-establish normative 

estuarine and plume and salinity 

conditions.

Hyd-15.0

Remove economically marginal dams 

on tributaries that block anadromous 

passage

Hyd-16.0

Restore passage for anadromous fish 

above blockages

Hyd-17.0

Operate adult passage facilities on an 

extended schedule

Hyd-18.0

Operate juvenile passage facilities on 

an extended schedule

Hyd-19.0

Maximize transport downstream 

juvenile salmonid migrants

Hyd-20.0

Use "Share the risk" transportation 

policy for juvenile salmonids

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Gradient Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - 

beaver ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder 

riffles

Habitat type - offchannel habitat 

factor

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - 

primary pools

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles Harassment

2 2

1

Hydro / Page 28 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hyd-1.0

Channel maintenance flows below 

dam

Hyd-2.0

Convert storage reservoir to run-ofriver reservoir

Hyd-3.0 Breach a dam

Hyd-4.0

Provide alternative fish passage 

structures and operations to minimize 

life history selection

Hyd-5.0

Discourage proliferation of shad via 

adult passage facilities

Hyd-6.0

Operate juvenile fish passage 

facilities year round

Hyd-7.0 Dam drawdwon

Hyd-8.0

Manage spill to minimize dissolved 

gas

Hyd-9.0 Minimize daily flow fluctuations 

Hyd-10.0 Normative seasonal flow and flooding

Hyd-11.0

Provide gravel and organic debris in 

unimpounded mainstem areas

Hyd-12.0

Design and implement bypass 

structures to reflect biological 

characteristics

Hyd-13.0

Operate adult passage facilities yearround

Hyd-14.0

Provide flow to re-establish normative 

estuarine and plume and salinity 

conditions.

Hyd-15.0

Remove economically marginal dams 

on tributaries that block anadromous 

passage

Hyd-16.0

Restore passage for anadromous fish 

above blockages

Hyd-17.0

Operate adult passage facilities on an 

extended schedule

Hyd-18.0

Operate juvenile passage facilities on 

an extended schedule

Hyd-19.0

Maximize transport downstream 

juvenile salmonid migrants

Hyd-20.0

Use "Share the risk" transportation 

policy for juvenile salmonids

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Hatchery fish 

outplants

Hydrologic regime - 

natural

Hydrologic regime - 

regulated Icing Metals/Pollutants - in sediments/soils

Metals - in water 

column

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column

Nutrient enrichment Obstructions to fish 

migration

Hydro / Page 29 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

Hyd-1.0

Channel maintenance flows below 

dam

Hyd-2.0

Convert storage reservoir to run-ofriver reservoir

Hyd-3.0 Breach a dam

Hyd-4.0

Provide alternative fish passage 

structures and operations to minimize 

life history selection

Hyd-5.0

Discourage proliferation of shad via 

adult passage facilities

Hyd-6.0

Operate juvenile fish passage 

facilities year round

Hyd-7.0 Dam drawdwon

Hyd-8.0

Manage spill to minimize dissolved 

gas

Hyd-9.0 Minimize daily flow fluctuations 

Hyd-10.0 Normative seasonal flow and flooding

Hyd-11.0

Provide gravel and organic debris in 

unimpounded mainstem areas

Hyd-12.0

Design and implement bypass 

structures to reflect biological 

characteristics

Hyd-13.0

Operate adult passage facilities yearround

Hyd-14.0

Provide flow to re-establish normative 

estuarine and plume and salinity 

conditions.

Hyd-15.0

Remove economically marginal dams 

on tributaries that block anadromous 

passage

Hyd-16.0

Restore passage for anadromous fish 

above blockages

Hyd-17.0

Operate adult passage facilities on an 

extended schedule

Hyd-18.0

Operate juvenile passage facilities on 

an extended schedule

Hyd-19.0

Maximize transport downstream 

juvenile salmonid migrants

Hyd-20.0

Use "Share the risk" transportation 

policy for juvenile salmonids

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Predation risk Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by 

month)

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by 

month)

Temperature - 

spatial variation Turbidity Water withdrawals Wood

Hydro / Page 30 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Code Strategy Name Alkalinity Bed scour Ben hos diversity 

and production Channel length

Channel width - 

month maximum 

width (ft)

Channel width - 

month minimum 

width (ft)

Confinement - 

Hydro-modifications

Confinement - 

natural Dissolved oxygen

Hyd-21.0

Use transportation as an emergency 

measure

Hyd-22.0 Eliminate transporta ion

Hyd-23.0 Use barges only for transportation

Hyd-24.0

Install extended length screens at 

collector projects

Hyd-25.0

Eliminate use of extended length 

screens at all projects

Hyd-26.0

Provide flow to provide normative 

downsteam temperatures

Hyd-27.0

Locate bypass outfalls to reduce 

predation

Hyd-28.0 Remove bank armoring 1 2

Hyd-29.0 Connect backwaters and sloughs 1 1

Hyd-30.0

Manage flow to promote mainstem 

spawning below dams.

Hyd-31.0 BiOp Flows

Hyd-32.0 IRCs

Hyd-33.0 Shift spring flow to summer

Hyd-34.0 Install surface bypass

Hyd-35.0 Install "Fish friendly" turbines

Hyd-36.0 Pre-WB flow

Hyd-37.0 BRCs

Hydro / Page 31 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hyd-21.0

Use transportation as an emergency 

measure

Hyd-22.0 Eliminate transporta ion

Hyd-23.0 Use barges only for transportation

Hyd-24.0

Install extended length screens at 

collector projects

Hyd-25.0

Eliminate use of extended length 

screens at all projects

Hyd-26.0

Provide flow to provide normative 

downsteam temperatures

Hyd-27.0

Locate bypass outfalls to reduce 

predation

Hyd-28.0 Remove bank armoring 

Hyd-29.0 Connect backwaters and sloughs

Hyd-30.0

Manage flow to promote mainstem 

spawning below dams.

Hyd-31.0 BiOp Flows

Hyd-32.0 IRCs

Hyd-33.0 Shift spring flow to summer

Hyd-34.0 Install surface bypass

Hyd-35.0 Install "Fish friendly" turbines

Hyd-36.0 Pre-WB flow

Hyd-37.0 BRCs

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Embeddedness Fine sediment Fish community 

richness Fish pa hogens Fish species introductions

Flow - change in 

interannual 

variability in high 

flows

Flow - changes in 

interannual 

variability in low 

flows

Flow - Intra daily 

(diel) varia ion

Flow - intra-annual 

flow pattern

Hydro / Page 32 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hyd-21.0

Use transportation as an emergency 

measure

Hyd-22.0 Eliminate transporta ion

Hyd-23.0 Use barges only for transportation

Hyd-24.0

Install extended length screens at 

collector projects

Hyd-25.0

Eliminate use of extended length 

screens at all projects

Hyd-26.0

Provide flow to provide normative 

downsteam temperatures

Hyd-27.0

Locate bypass outfalls to reduce 

predation

Hyd-28.0 Remove bank armoring 

Hyd-29.0 Connect backwaters and sloughs

Hyd-30.0

Manage flow to promote mainstem 

spawning below dams.

Hyd-31.0 BiOp Flows

Hyd-32.0 IRCs

Hyd-33.0 Shift spring flow to summer

Hyd-34.0 Install surface bypass

Hyd-35.0 Install "Fish friendly" turbines

Hyd-36.0 Pre-WB flow

Hyd-37.0 BRCs

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Gradient Habitat type - 

backwater pools

Habitat type - 

beaver ponds

Habitat type - large 

cobble/boulder 

riffles

Habitat type - offchannel habitat 

factor

Habitat type - pool 

tailouts/glides

Habitat type - 

primary pools

Habitat type - small 

cobble/gravel riffles Harassment

2 2

2 2

Hydro / Page 33 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hyd-21.0

Use transportation as an emergency 

measure

Hyd-22.0 Eliminate transporta ion

Hyd-23.0 Use barges only for transportation

Hyd-24.0

Install extended length screens at 

collector projects

Hyd-25.0

Eliminate use of extended length 

screens at all projects

Hyd-26.0

Provide flow to provide normative 

downsteam temperatures

Hyd-27.0

Locate bypass outfalls to reduce 

predation

Hyd-28.0 Remove bank armoring 

Hyd-29.0 Connect backwaters and sloughs

Hyd-30.0

Manage flow to promote mainstem 

spawning below dams.

Hyd-31.0 BiOp Flows

Hyd-32.0 IRCs

Hyd-33.0 Shift spring flow to summer

Hyd-34.0 Install surface bypass

Hyd-35.0 Install "Fish friendly" turbines

Hyd-36.0 Pre-WB flow

Hyd-37.0 BRCs

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Hatchery fish 

outplants

Hydrologic regime - 

natural

Hydrologic regime - 

regulated Icing Metals/Pollutants - in sediments/soils

Metals - in water 

column

Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column

Nutrient enrichment Obstructions to fish 

migration

Hydro / Page 34 of 10 
 Strategy effectiveness assumptions applied in analyzing alternative basin plans.

Effectiveness codes are: blank = nil (0%); 1 = low (10%); 2 = moderate (25%); 3 = high (55%); 4 = full (100%)

Strategy

Code Strategy Name

 

Hyd-21.0

Use transportation as an emergency 

measure

Hyd-22.0 Eliminate transporta ion

Hyd-23.0 Use barges only for transportation

Hyd-24.0

Install extended length screens at 

collector projects

Hyd-25.0

Eliminate use of extended length 

screens at all projects

Hyd-26.0

Provide flow to provide normative 

downsteam temperatures

Hyd-27.0

Locate bypass outfalls to reduce 

predation

Hyd-28.0 Remove bank armoring 

Hyd-29.0 Connect backwaters and sloughs

Hyd-30.0

Manage flow to promote mainstem 

spawning below dams.

Hyd-31.0 BiOp Flows

Hyd-32.0 IRCs

Hyd-33.0 Shift spring flow to summer

Hyd-34.0 Install surface bypass

Hyd-35.0 Install "Fish friendly" turbines

Hyd-36.0 Pre-WB flow

Hyd-37.0 BRCs

 Level 2 Ecological Attribute:

Predation risk Riparian func ion Salmon Carcasses

Temperature - daily 

maximum (by 

month)

Temperature - daily 

minimum (by 

month)

Temperature - 

spatial variation Turbidity Water withdrawals Wood

Hydro / Page 35 of 10 








































Appendix I

Scientific Principles

Principle 1: The abundance, productivity and diversity of organisms are integrally 

linked to the characteristics of their ecosystems. 

Discussion: An ecosystem is the organized complex of physical and biological 

components that make up the world we observe every day (Tansley 1935). The physical 

and biological components are inseparably related to produce the diversity, abundance 

and productivity of plant and animal species including humans (Odum 1971). Because of 

the pervasive impact of human actions on ecological systems (Vitousek and others 1997), 

achieving goals for individual species of commercial, cultural or other human interest 

will require managing human activities to support ecological processes (Christensen and 

others 1996). 

Although we may have an intuitive feel for what constitutes an ecosystem, 

management goals are frequently couched in terms of individual species. Because of this, 

management actions typically focus on the needs of individual species. As environments 

have been altered by human action, we have attempted to prop-up species of commercial 

and cultural concern. These efforts have met with sporadic success. There is increasing 

recognition of the need for multiple species management and the integration of land 

management with fish and wildlife management (Christensen and others 1996, Dale and 

others 2000). This means recognizing the processes that form the necessary habitats for 

species and the functions that species provide to the ecosystem. The combination of 

suitable habitats and needed ecological functions combine to form the ecosystems needed 

to provide the desired abundance and productivity of specific species.

Local climate, hydrology and geomorphologic factors as well as species 

interactions strongly affect ecological processes and the abundance distribution of species 

at any one place (Dale and others 2000). Life histories, physical features and diversity of 

individual species are shaped by climate, physical structure of their habitat and by 

biological interactions . Change in physical or biological features of the ecosystem, either 
2

natural or human-induced, will affect the capacity, productivity and diversity of fish and 

wildlife species. 

Implications: Management of species in isolation at best provides an incomplete picture, 

and at worst misleads by not accounting for the context and mechanisms that control 

species abundance, capacity and diversity. This principle notes the integral relationship 

between species and their environment and the role that species themselves play in 

maintaining that environment. It couples ecological conditions to the productivity and 

abundance of species including those of management interest. 

Natural resource management, especially fisheries management, often isolates 

species from their environment to protect them from habitat loss or other impacts of 

human actions (Bottom 1997). In the Columbia River we have tried to develop a 

protected corridor for salmon within limited parts of the life cycle while allowing the 

ecological support system to be dramatically altered. This neglects the role of biological 

and physical factors of the ecosystem in shaping individuals, populations and species 

through natural selection. These efforts also do not replace the habitats themselves or the 

ecological function that species provide. For salmon, the reality has been that, although 

large numbers of individuals are released into the system and protected through their 

freshwater phase, fewer and fewer fish return to spawn. 

Principle 2. Ecosystems are dynamic, resilient and develop over time.

Discussion: Although ecosystems have definable structures and characteristics, their 

behavior is highly dynamic, constantly changing in response to internal and external 

factors (Dale and others 2000). The system we see today is the product of its biological, 

human and geological legacy. Disturbance and change are normal ecological processes 

and essential to the structure and maintenance of habitats (Bisson and others 1997). For 

example, floods structure aquatic habitat and fires structure terrestrial habitats (Reeves 

and others 1995).

Disturbance can be the result of natural processes such as fire, flood or insect 

outbreaks, or human activities such as timber harvest or agriculture. Natural disturbance 

patterns create a mosaic of habitats across the landscape and through time (Reeves and 

others 1995). At the same time, ecosystems maintain characteristic features and support 
3

definable communities of organisms. Habitat-forming processes resulting from the 

underlying geology, climate and hydrology and species ecological functions of the 

individual species impart a degree of resilience to the system allowing it to accommodate 

change and maintain essential characteristics (Holling 1973). Depending on the degree of 

perturbation and the resilience of the system, the ecosystem may eventually resemble its 

previous condition once the disturbance dissipates. There are limits to the ability of an 

ecosystem to absorb change and retain its original characteristics (Holling 1973, Reice 

and others 1990). The system is not destroyed but instead shifts into a new configuration. 

Different species will be favored and new biological and physical interactions will 

develop.

A normal ecosystem will show describable, if not generally predictable, patterns 

of change over time (Odum 1969). Forests, for example, have successional patterns 

characterized by the change from pioneer to mature species. A forest, like other 

ecosystems, may appear stable when we observe it at one point in time, but it changes 

over broader time frames. Similarly, lakes and streams mature with dramatically 

different ecological character at various points in time (Cummins and others 1984). 

Natural disturbances can interrupt succession locally leading to a mosaic of habitats 

across the landscape (Reeves and others 1995). More widespread and pervasive 

disturbance including many human activities can stop or reset ecological succession 

patterns and prevent formation of habitats and processes that may be essential to 

continuation and abundance of some species.

Implications: Many natural resource management actions are designed to control the 

environment, reduce variability and achieve a stable and predictable yield from a highly 

dynamic system (Holling and Meffe 1996). For example, hatcheries were conceived, in 

part, to smooth out natural variation in fish populations and to sustain harvest over time 

(Bottom 1997). Dams and other structures dampen seasonal variation in water flow, 

while banks are stabilized and diked. Hatchery production and fish passage measures are 

timed and engineered to provide a predictable fish migration with minimal conflict with 

human uses of the river. Fires are suppressed leading to altered forest succession and 

species composition as well as insect outbreaks (Quigley and others 1996).
4

This principle encourages a departure from attempts to freeze the system in a 

certain constant state and manage for constant yields. Natural resource management 

programs should anticipate and accommodate change. Expectations of constant 

abundance or yield from natural resources are unrealistic and ignore fundamental features 

of ecological systems. Disturbance should be recognized as a strategy for development 

and maintenance of habitat. Efforts to stabilize the environment and reduce disturbance 

will fundamentally alter habitats to the detriment of capacity, productivity and diversity 

of target species. 

Principle 3. Biological systems are organized hierarchically.

Discussion: Ecosystems, landscapes, communities and populations are usefully described 

as hierarchies of nested components (Allen and Hoekstra 1992). Levels within these 

hierarchies are distinguished by their appropriate spatial and time scales. A higher level 

addresses larger areas that fluctuate at relatively long time intervals, whereas lower levels 

encompass smaller areas and fluctuate at higher frequencies. Expansive ecologic al 

patterns and processes constrain, and in turn reflect, localized patterns and processes 

(Wiens 1989). By analogy to a camera lens, we can zoom in to address fine details and 

pan out to consider the system as a whole.

The definition of the hierarchy and scale is dependent on the question asked 

(Levin 1992). There is no single, intrinsically correct description, only one that usefully 

addresses the problem. The description should clarify the higher level constraints as well 

as the localized mechanisms behind the problem.

This suggests neither a top-down nor a bottom-up approach, but integrates both. 

Depending on the question, it may be necessary to focus on the higher level constraints 

on a level or to consider how performance at lower levels combines to produce the result 

we see (Weins 1989). Performance at any level reflects both the synergistic effect of 

actions at local scales and the constraints imposed by higher level factors (Allen and 

Hoekstra 1992); that is, it is useful to look at the next level up to understand the context, 

and the next level down to understand the mechanisms.

Viewing ecosystems as hierarchies is useful for depicting the underlying structure 

of many ecological components. Regional climates vary through time on scales ranging 
5

from millennial to inter annual (Greenland 1998). Disturbance regimes within 

ecosystems can be described at a variety of spatial and temporal scales (Delcourt and 

others 1983) that can affect life history patterns and genetic structure (Wissmar and 

Simenstad 1998). Frissell and others (1986) structured aquatic habitats describe a 

hierarchical classification system that reflects underlying geomorphic hierarchies. 

Implications: If ecosystems are viewed as nested hierarchies, it is necessary to define 

appropriate scales for their management and study (Holling and Meffe 1996). To solve 

problems regarding the entire Columbia River Basin, we need to filter out some more 

localized data. On the other hand, questions concerning localized components (e.g. 

subbasins) cannot be addressed by looking at the entire basin. Understanding basin-level 

problems requires knowledge of actions and processes that take place in subbasins, while 

subbasin level actions will be successful only when considered in the context of factors 

operating at basin and regional levels. 

This principle provides an ecologically based way to structure fish and wildlife 

recovery (Quigley and others 1996). Such a structure should reflect ecological pattern 

within the system while providing a useful organizational device for recovery efforts. A 

necessary first step is to define the ecosystem at the point in the ecological continuum 

appropriate to the problem. The ecosystem at that point reflects the characteristics of the 

features nested within and higher level constraints on performance. 

Principle 4. Environments and habitats develop, and are maintained, by processes 

related to climate, geology and hydrology.

Discussion: Habitat refers to the resources and conditions present in an area that allow a 

species or a group of species to exist and thrive (Hall and others 1997). Habitats are 

created, altered and maintained by processes that operate over at a range of scales (Allen 

and Hoekstra 1992). Habitat forming processes include runoff patterns, heating/cooling, 

forest succession, and erosion/deposition (Imhof and others 1996). At the local scale, 

habitats are created and maintained by processes that encompass aquatic and terrestrial 

factors throughout the watershed reflecting hydrology and geology. Regional climatic 

conditions in turn control temperatures and precipitation that are important in the 

development of habitats. Locally observed conditions often reflect more expansive or 
6

non-local processes and influences, including human actions. The presence of essential 

habitat features created by these processes determines the abundance, productivity and 

diversity of species and communities (Morrison and others 1998). 

The active agent of many aquatic habitat-forming processes is water acting with 

the underlying geology, topography and climate. The hydrologic linking of habitat 

processes means that the impacts of actions can radiate and accumulate downstream. 

Habitat conditions such as water temperature or sediment can be the result of actions and 

conditions that occur upstream. Aquatic habitat conditions are affected by terrestrial 

conditions and actions that accumulate as water moves downslope. 

Terrestrial habitats are often described in terms of food, water and cover. 

Formation of these features is related to vegetational patterns that result from 

environmental needs of individual plant species, succession and patterns of humancaused and natural disturbance (Whittaker 1975). In turn, vegetation pattern is related to 

local geology, topography and climate in the context of regional factors such as climate. 

Implications: Understanding the processes that create and maintain aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats are key to the management of human impacts on those habitats (Imhof and others 

1996). These processes can only be appreciated by consideration of habitats at watershed 

or subbasin scales even though the perceived problem is localized. Often our efforts are 

focused on correcting symptoms of habitat degradation and loss rather than on causes. 

We try to “fix” the problem by engineering localized solutions. In most cases, these 

efforts prove futile because the process and conditions creating the problem are still 

active (Kauffman and others 1997). For example, logging practices in the upper parts of 

watersheds may affect water temperatures and sediment levels and negate efforts to 

correct habitat problems lower in the system. Livestock grazing may preclude 

development of normal vegetational succession in riparian areas with downstream 

impacts on flow, temperature and sediments. Management to achieve goals for specific 

species implies allowing normal habitat forming processes to operate and develop an 

appropriate environment. 

This principle stresses the need to understand and address habitat forming 

processes in order to restore and maintain aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Habitat 
7

restoration actions undertaken without appreciation of the underlying Land use practices 

affect habitats through processes similar to those structuring natural habitats. Relating 

practices to process is key to ensuring that habitats are available to support biological 

communities and species of interest.

Principle 5. Species play key roles in maintaining ecological conditions.

Discussion: Organisms do not act as passive residents of their habitats. Instead, each 

species has one or more ecological functions that may be key to the development and 

maintenance of ecological conditions (Walker 1995). Species, in effect, have a distinct 

job or occupation that is essential to the diversity, sustainability and productivity of the 

ecosystem over time (Morrison and others 1998). For example, plant, animal and 

bacterial species structure habitats, cycle energy and control species abundance and 

diversity. The existence, productivity and abundance of species depend on these 

functions. To varying degrees, similar ecological functions may be performed by 

different species. Promoting or maintaining a diversity of species that have similar 

“occupations” enhances the resilience of the ecosystem in the face of disturbance or 

environmental variation (Walker 1995).

However, some ecological functions lack redundancy and are performed by a 

limited number of species. Removal or declines of such species can have significant 

impacts on their associated ecological function, the ecosystem and its species. In Pacific 

Northwest ecosystems, for example, salmon often have a key role in cycling of 

substantial amounts of nutrients and energy from the marine environment to freshwater 

and terrestrial habitats (Cederholm and others 2000). Removal of salmon from these 

systems results in ecological changes that can have far reaching impacts on a variety of 

aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species (Willson and Halupka 1995, Cederholm 

and others 2000).

Implications: Traditional natural resource management has viewed species largely as 

passive functions of their habitat, separate and distinct from their ecosystems. This 

principle affirms the integral relationship between species and their ecosystems and the 

need to consider actions in the context of species ecological function. Many of our 

actions serve to isolate and protect species such as salmon even as the surrounding 
8

ecosystem is altered in fundamental ways. Salmon hatcheries, for example, may provide 

harvest benefits to some human users when habitats have been altered or destroyed, but 

they do not replace the ecological role that salmon play in the ecosystem. The result can 

be significant ecological change affecting the presence and abundance of other aquatic 

and terrestrial species (Cederholm and others 2000). Actions such as hatcheries may 

continue to play a role in natural resource management, but they must be used not only to 

bolster survival and capacity of salmon, but also to restore or replace the function that 

salmon play in their ecosystem. 

Principle 6. Biological diversity allows species to accommodate environmental 

variation.

Discussion: The physical and biological template of the environment shapes species, 

populations and individuals (Southwood 1977). Variation in the template over time and 

space, as well as the structure of the environment, results in an organization of biological 

variation among species, races, demes and individuals. Generally speaking, greater 

diversity between and within species leads to greater ecological stability (Odum 1971). 

Greater biological diversity between species leads to redundancy in ecological function 

that provides alternatives as species wax and wane with environmental variation (Walker 

1995, Morrison and others 1998). Within a species, variation in biological characteristics 

among populations and individuals is the fuel by which adaptation occurs in response to 

environmental variation. A more diverse species has a greater range of possible solutions 

to the challenges posed by variation and changes in its environment. Within the spectrum 

of populations that comprises a species (chinook salmon in the Columbia River, for 

example) there is a variation in survival as the environment shifts over time. As some 

populations suffer under an environmental extreme such as an El Nino condition, others 

might fare better. The species survives, bolstered by its ability to respond to the shifting 

environment (Bisbal and McConnaha 1998). 

Implications: Human actions can reduce biological variation (Urban and others 1987, 

Policansky and Magnuson 1998). As we simplify and stabilize environments, biological 

variation is reduced. This leads to species that are less capable of responding adaptively 

to environmental change. 
9

If we accept that diversity between species increases ecosystem stability while 

within species diversity provides the ability of the species to better sustain itself and 

ultimately adapt to changing environments, then we should manage our activities to allow 

natural expression of biological diversity. While diversity can be quantified, 

determination of the “proper” level of biological diversity is likely not possible, partly 

because it shifts and varies over time in response to natural selection. The challenge is to 

manage human activities to minimize our impacts on selection and allow diversity to 

develop accordingly.

Principle 7. Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

Discussion: Many of the features of ecological systems described in these principles 

counsel against the notion of command and control of the environment (Holling and 

Meffe 1996). Instead, the complexity and variability of ecosystems argues for 

management that is inherently experimental (McConnaha and Paquet 1996) and that 

admits and accounts for the range of natural dynamics at all levels of biological 

organization. Our knowledge of ecological systems is incomplete. We can describe the 

structure and nature of ecosystems in some ways, but important details elude us. More 

importantly, we have only recently begun to appreciate the Columbia River as an 

ecosystem. For most of this century we have thought of the Columbia River as a 

machine that can be adapted to meet our needs (White 1995). Ready solutions to 

management of a highly developed system like the Columbia River have not been 

developed. Finally, as has been emphasized in these principles, ecosystems vary over 

time. What is key to recovery of species today may not be so important in the future as 

the system shifts in some largely unpredictable fashion.

Adaptive management – the use of management experiments to investigate 

biological problems and to test the efficacy of management directions -- provides a model 

for experimental management of ecosystems. However, ecological scale management 

presents special challenges to adaptive management (Walters 1997). Ecosystem 

experiments may be impractical, infeasible or pose equity questions (Volkman and 

McConnaha 1993). We may be unwilling to experiment with beleaguered fish and 

wildlife populations. Under these circumstances, there may be less opportunity for large-
10

scale management experiments, and more need for directed experimentation and 

research. Nevertheless, an explicit, directed approach to learning is essential. 

Experimental management does not mean passive “learning by doing”, but, rather a 

directed program aimed at understanding key ecosystem dynamics and the impacts of 

human actions by using the rigorous methods of scientific experimentation and inquiry 

(Platt 1964).

Implications: This principle argues for management that conscientiously experiments 

and probes to better understand the ecosystem. Ecosystem management is likely to 

require the development of new measuring tools (Done and Reichelt 1990). To the 

standard indices of abundance of important fish and wildlife species, ecosystem 

management calls for new indicators of success such as development of habitat 

characteristics, normal trophic structure, biological diversity and species conservation 

status. What is critical to fish and wildlife restoration in one decade may not be critical in 

the next as the ecosystem shifts in response to internal or external factors and as human 

values shift. As we learn about ecosystems, new strategies may be indicated. However, 

in order to provide relevant information regarding these factors, monitoring and 

evaluation need to be built into management programs from the ground up.

Principle 8. Ecosystem function, habitat structure and biological performance are 

affected by human actions.

Discussion: Humans are integral parts of ecosystems. Our actions have a pervasive 

impact on the structure and function of ecosystems, while, at the same time, our health 

and well being are tied to these conditions (Vitousek and others 1997). Like many other 

organisms, humans structure and control ecosystems for their own needs. In some 

ecosystems, human impacts act as major factors controlling the environment. However, 

unlike other organisms, we can consciously control our actions to allow needed 

ecological conditions to develop. While our actions may be unique in the scale of impact 

on ecological systems, the method of interaction is not; ecological principles apply to 

human interactions with ecosystems as much as they do to the interactions of fish and 

wildlife species and the ecosystem.

It is a reasonable assumption that for most species, the ecological conditions that

are most conducive to their long-term survival and productivity are those under which 
11

they evolved. Human actions in the Columbia River have shifted ecosystems away from 

their pre-development conditions with negative impacts for many native species, 

especially fish. Some changes are irreversible. New species such as smallmouth bass, 

walleye and many plant and terrestrial animals have been introduced and permanent 

changes have been made to the landscape. Even with complete cessation of human 

activities, these ecosystems would not return to their previous condition. However, 

human impacts on ecosystems can be managed to move the system to a state that is more 

compatible with the needs of other species.

Implications: These scientific principles suggest ways to view our role in ecosystems. 

Humans have significantly altered the natural landscape in the Columbia River Basin for 

several millennia and have significantly affected the abundance and distribution of plants 

and animals (Martin and Szuter 1999). In highly developed ecosystems like the 

Columbia River, human actions and technology will continue to dominate the system. 

However, those actions can be managed in a manner consistent with the needs of other 

species. The issue is to what extent are we able to control our impacts so as to balance the 

various services potentially provided by the Columbia River basin. It is simply a question 

of the type of environment in which we choose to live and how much we are willing to 

limit our actions to achieve these objectives.

References cited.

Allen, T. F. H., and T. W. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a unified ecology. Columbia 

University Press, New York, NY.

Bisbal, G. A., and W. E. McConnaha. 1998. The influence of ocean conditions on the 

management of Pacific Salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 55(9):2178-2186.

Bisson, P., G. H. Reeves, R. E. Bilby, and R. J. Naiman. 1997. Watershed management 

and Pacific salmon: desired future conditions. Pages 447-474 in D. J. Stouder and 

P. A. Bisson, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future 

options. Chapman Hall, New York.

Bottom, D. 1997. To till the water--A history of ideas in fisheries conservation. Pages 

569-597 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon 

and their ecosystems: Status and future options. Chapman Hall, New York, NY.
12

Cederholm, C. J., D. H. Johnson, R. E. Bilby, L. G. Dominguez, A. M. Garrett, W. H. 

Graeber, M. D. Kunze, B. G. Marcot, J. F. Palmisano, R. W. Plotnikoff, W. G. 

Pearcy, C. A. Simenstad, and P. C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific salmon and wildlifeEcological contexts, relationships and implications for management. Special 

Edition Technical Report Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

WA.

Christensen, N. C., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D'Antonio, R. Francis, 

J. F. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. 

Turner, and R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of 

America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. 

Ecological Applications 6(3):665-691.

Cummins, K. W., G. W. Minshall, J. R. Sedell, C. E. Cushing, and R. C. Petersen. 1984. 

Stream ecosystem theory. Internationale Vereinigung fur theoretische und 

angewandte Limnologie, Verhandlungen 22:1818-1827.

Dale, V. H., S. Brown, R. A. Haeuber, N. T. Hobbs, N. Huntly, R. J. Naiman, W. E. 

Riebsame, M. G. Turner, and T. J. Valone. 2000. Ecological principles and 

guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications 10(3):639-670.

Delcourt, H. R., P. A. Delcourt, and T. Webb. 1983. Dynamic plant ecology: the 

spectrum of vegetational change in space and time. Quaternary Science Review 

1:153-175.

Done, T. J., and R. E. Reichelt. 1990. Integrated coastal zone and fisheries ecosystem 

management: Generic goals and performance indices. Ecological Monographs 8(1 

Supplement):S110-S118.

Frissell, W. J., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical 

framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed 

context. Environmental Management 10(2):199-214.

Greenland, D. 1998. Variability and stability of climatic/oceanic regimes in the Pacific 

Northwest. Pages 91-179 in G. R. McMurray and R. J. Bailey, editors. Changes, 

in Pacific Northwest coastal ecosystems. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Springs, MD.

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for 

standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):173-182.

Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23.

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of 

natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10(2):328-337.
13

Imhof, J. G., J. Fitzgibbon, and W. K. Annable. 1996. A hierarchical evaluation system 

for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitat. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(Supplement 1):312-326.

Independent Scientific Group. 2000. Return to the River 2000: restoration of salmonid 

fishes in the Columbia River Ecosystem. NPPC 2000-12, Northwest Power 

Planning Council, Portland, OR.

Kauffman, J. B., R. L. Beschta, N. Otting, and D. Lytjen. 1997. An ecological perspective 

of riparian and stream restoration in the Western United States. Fisheries 

22(5):12-24.

Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1942-1968.

Martin, P. S., and C. R. Szuter. 1999. War zones and game sinks in Lewis and Clark's 

west. Conservation Biology 13(1):36-45.

McConnaha, W. E., and P. J. Paquet. 1996. Adaptive strategies for the management of 

ecosystems: the Columbia River experience. Pages 410-421 in L. E. Miranda and 

D. R. DeVries, editors. Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries 

management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannon. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships. 

Concepts and Applications, Second edition. University of Wisconsin Press, 

Madison, WI.

Odum, E. P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262-270.

Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd edition. W. B. Saunders Company, 

Philadelphia.

Platt, J. R. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146(3642):347-353.

Policansky, D., and J. J. Magnuson. 1998. Genetics, metapopulations, and ecosystem 

management of fisheries. Ecological Monographs 8(1 Supplement):S119-S123.

Quigley, T. M., R. W. Haynes, R. T. Graham, and T. Russel. 1996. An integrated 

scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin 

and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. PNW-GTR-382, U.S. Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Reeves, G. H., K. M. Benda, P. A. Burnett, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. 1995. A 

disturbance based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater 

habitats of evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific 

Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:334-349.
14

Reice, S. R., R. C. Wissmar, and R. J. Naiman. 1990. Disturbance regimes, resilience and 

recovery of animal communities and habitats in lotic ecosystems. Environmental 

Management 14(5):647-659.

Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the template for ecological strategies? Journal of 

Animal Ecology 46:337-365.

Tansley, A. G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 

16:284-307.

Urban, M. G., R. V. O'Neill, and H. N. Shugart. 1987. Landscape ecology: a hierarchical 

perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37:119-

127.

Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human 

domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.

Volkman, J. M., and W. E. McConnaha. 1993. Through a glass, darkly: Columbia River 

salmon,the Endangered Species Act, and adaptive management. Environmental 

Law 23:1249-1272.

Walker, B. 1995. Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem resilience. 

Conservation Biology 9(4):747-752.

Walters, C. J. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal 

ecosystems. Conservation Ecology [online] 

1(2):http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1.

Weins, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3:385-397.

White, R. 1995. The Organic Machine: the Remaking of the Columbia River. Hill and 

Wang, New York, NY.

Whittaker, R. H. 1975. Communities and ecosystems, 2nd edition. Macmillian, New 

York.

Wiens, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3:385-397.

Willson, M. F., and K. C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in 

vertebrate communities. Conservation Biology 9(3):489-497.

Wissmar, R. C., and C. A. Simenstad. 1998. Variability of riverine and estuarine 

ecosystem productivity for supporting Pacific Salmon. Pages 253-301 in G. R. 

McMurray and R. J. Bailey, editors. Change in Pacific Northwest coastal 

ecosystems. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Silver Springs, MD.
Appendix J

Annotated Bibliography List

CAPACITY

Reference List

Lukesh, G. R. 1930. The Columbia river system. Military Engineer 22 (124): 328-335.

Abstract: Author provides an excellent historical, geographical, hydraulic (gradient, navigability, etc.) 

synopsis of the Columbia river system (and the Snake river basin) from its sources to the mouth. 

Discusses the potential for power (includes tables illustrating Streams, Condition of Flow, Kilowatts 

Available, and Installed Capacity, etc.) and irrigation developments in the Columbia river systempp. 328-335.

Pacific Fisherman. 1903. Columbia River review. Pacific Fisherman I(6): 6.Seattle, Washington and 

Vancouver, B.C. complete p.

Abstract: Notes the policy of Fish Commission Kershaw, of the State of Washington, to double the 

output of the Chinook, Kalama, and Wind River hatcheries; the estimated capacity of these facilities 

will approximate 50 million fry, at $7,000 per year. Article also mentions the commissioner's (Mr. 

Kershaw) to open up new and extensive hatchery on the Grays River, near its headwaters.

CHINOOK

Reference List

Gaumer, Tom, Demory, Darrell, and Osis, Laimons. 1973. 1971 Columbia River Estuarine estuary 

resource use study. Fish Commission of Oregon, Division of Management and Research, Portland, 

Oregon. 

 Abstract: Authors provide information regarding fish species (invertebrate and vertebrate) harvested 

and observed in the recreation harvest from the seaward end of the south jetty upstream to the area 

adjacent to Jetty Sands parking lot, from 1 March through 31 October 1971. Figures and tables 

temporally and spatially illustrate the species and catch statistics for this harvest.

Griffin, L. E. 1935. Certainties and risks affecting fisheries connected with damming the Columbia 

River. Northwest Science IX(1): 25-30 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses 1) the economic importance of anadromous and resident fish species, and 

the effects on dam construction on said species; 2) the importance and distribution of salmon harvest 

in the Columbia basin; 3) the certainties associated with current state of technology of fish passage 

systems, and risks associated with designs and plans to be incorporated at the Bonneville project; 4) 

recommended actions to reduce risks associated with current fish passage technology; 5) certainties 

and risks associated with sedimentation and submergence of fish habitat (sloughs and shallows) in the 

Bonneville impoundment; 6) the certainties and risks of power plants to migration of young salmon; 

and 7) turbine designs and devices to reduce the risks associated with hydropower operaton. Author 

alludes to a hypothesis that the Columbia impoundments (e.g. Bonneville) may present risks to the 

importance of the sloughs and shallow ponds contiguous to the river, as being very important as a 

food source to young salmon during their downstream migration.
Oregon State. 1896. 3rd and 4th Annual Reports of the State Fish and Game Protector of the State of 

Oregon 1895-1896. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. W.H. Leeds, State Printer, 1896. 10,53 p.

Abstract: The Protector (Hollister D. McGuire) discusses failure of the last legislature to enact laws 

for more effectual regulation and protection related to such topics as concurrent regulations with the 

state of Washington, protection of salmon through construction of fishways, and harvest limitations 

on the columbia River, page 5. Mentions that oregon ahs an 1878 statute on the books requiring 

fishway construction at barriers to salmon, but his predecessors showed no willingness to enforce the 

statute. He lists the fishways that have been put in under his direction. pages 8-9. He discusses Indian 

fishing (Warm Spring Indians) and the earliest date of chinook salmon spawning in vicinity of the 

upper Clackamas River at its junction with a warm spring where thousands of salmon naturally 

spawn; this date is July 20th. page 10. Notes that a dam and operation of fishing in the lower 

Clackamas River (four miles below the hatchery) prevent salmon from ascending to the hatchery 

racks in 1893 and 1894; mentions that dam was removed last spring 1895. page 31. Mentions that 

$10,000 was appropriated by the 1893 Oregon legislature for work to construct a fishway on the 

Willamette River at the falls at Oregon City, and notes that fishway work is completed bu not 

adequate (except during high water stage) for the March and April migration of chinook at Oregon 

City falls, and that another $4000 is necessary to effect this passage. pages 50-52. Recommends that 

a provision in the law should mandate that fish screeens constructed at mill races, irrigation ditches, 

or canals, taking or receiving water from any river, creek, stream or lake having food fish; his 

attention to the need for such law was derived from a letter of Dr. C.H. Gilbert (Stanfor University) 

who noted that water diverters on the Wallowa River killed thousands of young chinook and bludback 

salmon by diversion of them into irrigated fields. page 53. Notes that an Oregon law of 1893 and 

reenacted in 1895 created the office of the Fish & Game Protector. page 83.

Oregon State. 1907. Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon for year 1907 

to the legislative assembly, twenty-fourth regular session (1907). State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. 

W.S. Duniway, State Printer, 1907. 78-79 p.

Abstract: The Master Fish Warden (H.G. Van Dusen) states that "in view of the fear that the salmon 

of the Columbia River was not being rehabilitated through the medium of the system of artificial 

propagation, I am very pleased to be able to chronicle...that there has been a considerable increase in 

salmon produced by the Columbia River this year over last year..." This increase was for Chinook and 

steelhead in both Washington and Oregon. He mentions that chinook and steelhead over past five 

years, but decreases in silversides and bluebacks; and says that artificial propgation has been of 

assistance in the increase of chinook and steelhead. Page 7. Notes that hatcheries select to use large 

and strong fish (males) for egg fertilization, and do not use small males; attributes this selective 

practice to maintaining the 25 lb. average weight of chinook ovr the past seasons. Page 8. Notes that 

egg collection at facilities in Snake and Wallowa Rivers was very unsatisfactory, even though the fish 

racks were operated early, few fish go upstream this far, and those that did were three males to one 

female. But the eggtake at federal and state hatcheries (Oregon and Washington) below Celilo Falls 

the eggtake was good. page 13. Notes an inspection of the Santiam River (Willamette tributary) in 

regards to sites for artificial propagation activities. pages 17-18. Mentions that the first contract for

the construction of the fishway over the falls of the Willamette River at Oregon City was completed 

and accepted by the state engineer on November 29, 1904. Mentions that as the Willamette Pulp and 

Paper Company completed a concrete dam at the falls, this dam caused water hydraulic problems in 

the fishway (upper pools) - the gradient of the upper portion of the fishway was too steep. This 

situation caused problems for the spring chinook migration over the falls. Surveys were conducted to 

make recommendations and provide cost estimates to remedy the fishway problem. Pages 20-24. 

Notes that hatchery station was established and operated on the McKenzie River at a site situated a 

couple of miles below Gates Creek; mentions that they took spawn of the early variety of chinook 

from August 15 to October 15th. States that liberated approximately 1.5 million fry of this 1905 

brood year into the McKenzie River in the immediate vicinity of the station during the months of 
January and February 1906. Pages 75-76. Notes that Wallowa Hatchery station did not secure any 

sockeye salmon spawn during the 1905 BY - (note: appears that this BY cycle is extinct or some 

lower river blockage prevented sockeye from upper area). page 78. Notes that by leaving racks of the 

Wallowa Hatchery in the river late, they discover a late run of silversides that passed the racks in the 

month of November, but were unable to hold them to spawning due to severe cold weather 

conditions. page 78. Notes that the Ontario hatchery station (Snake River at Swan Falls) left their 

rack in river late (until November 23rd) in hopes of collecting late running silversides, but none 

appeared. Page 84. Mentions the 1901 law passed by the Oregon State legislature that prohibited 

fishing above tide water and established fishing deadlines on all coast streams. page 129. Notes that 

fishway for the falls of the Willamette River at Oregon City provides excellent passage for early 

chinook in 1906, Page 132. Mentions request for two special deputy fish wardens to enfore laws 

regarding water diversions and dam obstructions that are causing mortality of young migrants going 

to sea; notes causes due to extensive development of power/mill dams across streams and irrigation 

projects that are taking water for irrigation puroses. Pages 134-135. Notes the needs for laws that 

assure better escapement to the spawning ground in the Columbia River; infers that hatcheries alone 

will not solve the problem of diminishing harvest to fishermen in the Columbia River. page 137. 

Notes that 1906 BY salmon returns (chinook and sockeye) in northeastern Oregon (Wallowa and 

Ontario Hatcheries) were poor; and that salmon runs in the lower Columbia River below Celilo Falls 

appeared to have been successful in running the gauntlet of net fishermen in the lower Columbia, 

Page 139. Mentions that he must secure eggs in order to assure shortage of Snake River stock (at 

Ontario Hatchery) four to five years hence, based on "...theory that Salmon return to the stream of 

their nativity to spawn..." Page 140.

Oregon State. 1951. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and 

forty-sixth legislative assembly, 1951. Fish Commission of the State of Oregon; Salem, Oregon, 

State Printing Office, 1951. 

Abstract: Notes that (1) Fish commission has particular interest in the study of logging effects on 

salmon production, page 3. (2) On June 1948, the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and 

Federal Government (Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of Interior) consummated agreement of 

the provision of funds for the rehabilitation of the lower tributaries of the Columbia River, under the 

Lower Columbia River Salmon Rehabilitation Program, page 10. (3) A fishway is installed at a 

diversion dam (owned by the Vancouver Plywood Company) on Rock, a tributary of the North 

Santiam River, this reopened considerable area for steelhead spawning. page 12. (4) A new concrete 

fishway is constructed at the Powerdale Dam (owned by Pacific Power and Light Company) on the 

Hood River, page 13. (5) A fish screening and by-pass system is completed in the Marmot Dam 

Canal (Marmot Dam project, owned by Portland General Electric Company) on the Sandy River, 

page 13. (6) Columbia River investigations are studying five different problems; (a) extension of 

reduction in productivity of the Columbia River Basin by the encroachment of man, (b) harvest 

practices, stock timing/migration/distribution; (c) knowledge of growth and survival and limiting 

factors of young salmon in freshwater, (d) effect contemplated water development projects on 

Columbia River salmon, and (e) studies on sturgeon. page 15. (7) A need for the development of 

cheap and nutritional diets alternative to the liver based diets. page 18.

Pollock, C. R. 1930. Fishery conditions in the state of Washington: Puget Sound appears healthy, but 

Columbia River shows decline. Pacific Fisherman Annual Statistical Number, Vol. 28, No. 2, 

January 25, 1930, pages 110-111. Seattle, Washington. 

Abstract: Supervisor of Fisheries states that there was a shortage of escapement in the Columbia 

River district. Mentions that there is little hope of increasing spring chinook run until adequate 

screening installations have been completed on irrigation ditches. Says that summer and fall chinook 

runs must be looked to as the source of harvest for the fishing industry in the Columbia River district. 

Also provides a report on hatchery operations in the Columbia River district during 1929.
Washington State. 1921. 30th and 31st annual reports of the state fish commissioner to the governor of 

the state of Washington: April 1, 1919 to March 31, 1921. State of Washington Department of 

Fisheries and Game, Olympia, Washington. Frank M. Lamborn, Public Printer, 1921. 

Abstract: The commissioner (L.H. Darwin) discusses: 1) the actions and impacts of the 1921 

legislative action to create the State Fish Commission, with respect to Washington fisheries resource 

management, in the context of state and international (Canada) benefits (p. 8-10); 2) discusses 

"Wastefulness of Natural production," in the context of justifying increased harvest rates through use 

of efficient fish artificial propagation. NOTE: this reference may be the premise for Washington state 

fisheries policy over the next 60 years (p. 18-19); 3) Notes negotiations with Northwestern Electric 

Company to provide mitigation monies for construction of a new hatchery at Chinook, WA 

(replacement of the old Chinook Salmon Hatchery) in lieu of upgrading and operating the existing 

fishway over their hydroelectric dam on the Big White Salmon River. Mentions that dam is 160 ft. in 

height, and that adult steelhead trout are the only species that transcend this dam upstream (p. 24); 4) 

extensive discussion of the Indian fishing privileges at Prosser Dam, and the fate of salmon resources 

in the Yakima River, based on the prognosis of irrigation/water developments in the Yakima basin -

states that within the next 10 years salmon will not exist in the Yakima (p. 27-29).

DAMS

Reference List

Andrew, F. J., Kersey, L. R., and Johnson, P. C. 1955. An investigation of the problems of guiding 

downstream migrant salmon at dams. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Bulletin 

VIII. 

Abstract: A comprehensive treatment of criteria and design of electric devices for guiding 

downstream salmon migrants; notes behavior of migrants in terms of response to electric fields and 

migration rates observed for sockeye and coho during experiments.

Baxter, R. M. 1977. Environmental effects of dams and impoundments. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 8: 255-283.

Abstract: Author provides 1) a general history and background of the impoundments, 2) Morphology 

and physical and chemical limnology of man-made lakes, 3) biology of reservoir ecosystems, 4) 

downstream effects of impoundments, 5) other consequences of impoundments, 6) summary and 

conclusions, and 6) a comprehensive listing of references on the subject.

Bell, M. C. 1954. Salmon fisheries versus power development. World Fishing 3(11): 392-396, 421-422 

(November 1954).

Abstract: Author provides a short synopsis of the Columbia River basin and its conflict between water 

users (dams and irrigation) and salmon fisheries resources; notes data regarding some Columbia River 

dam projects, number fish screen projects, and sockeye run size.

Bixby, W. H. 1912. Rivers and harbors improvement: Progress and needs in the United States, 1911. 

Professional Memoirs Vo. IV, No. 13: 114-128.Corps of Engineers, US Army, and Engineer 

Department at Large, 

Abstract: Author notes the General Dam Act of June 23, 1910, which recognized the fact that 

ownership of power developed by dams constructed wholly at private expense is a matter for control 

by individual states and not by the federal government. In accordance with this Act, which must be 

compilied with before riparian owners can build dams in navigable waters, the US is empowered to 

require the dam owner to furnish the US free of cost such water and such locks, log sluices, fishways, 

and other auxilary constructions as are necessary in the interest of navigation and the fisheries... p. 

125-126.
Bixby, William H. 1912. Rivers and harbors improvement: progress and needs in the United States, 

1911. Professional Memoirs Vol IV, No. 13: Corps of Engineers, United States Army, and Engineer 

Department at Large, 114-128 p.

Abstract: Author notes the General Dam Act of June 23, 1910, which recognized the fact that 

ownership of power developed by dams constructed wholly at private expense is a matter for control 

by individual states and not by the federal government. In accordance with this Act, which must be 

complied with before riparian owners can build dams in navigable waters... the US is empowered to 

require the dam owner to furnish the U.S free of cost such water and such locks, log sluices, fishways, 

and other auxiliary constructions as are necessary in the interest of navigation and the fisheries...p. 

125-126.

Bristow, M. P., D.H. Bundy, C.M. Edmonds, P.E. Ponto, B.E. Frey, and L.F. Small. 1985. Airborne 

laser fluorosensor survey of the Columbia and Snake Rivers; simultaneous measurements of 

chlorophyll, dissolved organics, and optical attenuation. International Journal of Remote Sensing 6: 

1707-1734.

Abstract: Author reports on the use and applicability of airborne laser fluorosensor surveys in 

determination of chlorophyll-a profiles of the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. Profiles of 

chlorophyll-a collected during peak discharges suggest the existence of subsurface chlorophyll-a 

maxima in the reservoirs formed by the eight dams of Columbia -Snake Inland Waterway.

Craig, J. A. 1935. The effects of power and irrigation projects on the migratory fish of the Columbia 

River. Northwest Science IX(1): 19-24 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses the effects of human land and water uses (logging, mining, power, and 

irrigation) on fisheries resources in the Columbia basin. Provides examples of habitat alterations 

imposed by these human uses. Briefly discusses life history and ecology of all anadromous salmonid 

species inhabiting the Columbia River basin. Discusses how the use of streams for power and 

irrigation purposes affect migratory salmon species: 1) obstacles that obstruct or delay migration of 

adult upstream to natal steams; and 2) injurious or delay impediments to downstream juvenile 

migration. Presents fishways and screening as mechanisms to protect fish, and the use of artificial 

propagation in the case of high dams.

Davidson, F. A. 1935. Research projects of the US Bureau of Fisheries in the Northwest. Northwest 

Science IX(1): 15-18.

Abstract: Author provides a synopsis of the US Bureau of Fisheries research projects that it has 

undertaken in the Northwest region. These projects are generally categorized as: A. Program for 

Study of Columbia River Salmon Fisheries, that includes 1) Statistical study of the Columbia River 

salmon fisheries, 2) Study of the protection of migratory fish at power dams and in irrigation canals in 

the Columbia River system, & 3) Biological study of the Columbia River salmon fisheries; B. Coho 

Salmon Investigation; and C. Puget Sound Sockeye Salmon Investigation.

Evergreen. 1993. The mighty Columbia I am life. Evergreen 23 pp. p.

Abstract: Author provides a concise history and chronology of events/activities (early 19 th century to 

present) in the Columbia basin, with respect to exploration & settlement and development of 

commerce & exploitation of natural resources in the basin. Many references and comments regarding 

the fisheries resources of the basin are provided.

 Chronology of events/activities:

(1) 1859- the first large scale irrigation project is completed in the Walla Walla river valley; p. 3

(2) 1880- between 1880 and 1910, loggers build more than 100 splash dams in the Columbia river 

basin, in order to transport logs; p. 3

(3) 1915- the Columbia Gorge Highway is completed on the Oregon side of the Columbia river; p. 3

(4) 1939- the Bonneville Power Administration signs its first industrial sales contract, with the 
Aluminum Company of America; ALCOA constructs a smelter on the Columbia, a few miles 

downstream of Vancouver; p. 3

(5) 1941- September 28 th, Grand Coulee Dam begins operation; p. 4

(6) Congress authorizes construction of Hungry Horse Dam, on the South Fork of the Flathead River 

in Montana; this dam was the first of many upstream dams to control summer and winter flows for 

maximum power generation by downstream dams; p. 4

(7) 1945- the US Congress authorizes construction of five dams: McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower 

Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite; p. 4

(8) 1946- the US Congress authorizes construction of Chief Joseph Dam; p. 4

(9) 1950- the US Congress ratified the River and Harbor Flood Control Act, authorizing four more 

dams: The Dalles and John Day on the mainstem Columbia; Albeni Falls and Pend Oreille in 

northeast Washington; and Libby Dam on the Kootenai in northwest Montana; p. 4;

(10) 1955- the Federal Power Commission grants Idaho Power Company a 50 year license to build 

three dams in Hells Canyon on the middle Shake River; p. 4 and 

(11) 1968- construction begins on eight hatcheries to compensate for chinook and steelhead losses 

from four federal dams on the lower Snake River; p. 4

Foerster, R. E. 1951. Forum: Fish and Power. Transactions of Fourth British Columbia Natural 

Resources Conference, Victoria BC, pages 128-140. 

Abstract: Authors discuss and provide references for the following topics associated with Fraser and 

Columbia rivers, in terms of a historical chronology: 1) Homing tendency of Pacific salmon, 2) catch 

to escapement ratios, 3) spawning potential 4) natural propagation, 5) treatment of obstructions, 6) 

effect of power installation, 7) power dams as obstructions, 8) fish ladders over low dams, 9) 

importance of collecting devices, 10) high dam problems, 11) influnce of the reservoir area on adult 

migration and spawning, 12) quality of water in reservoir, 13) descent of migrating salmon, 14) 

alternative or replacement salmon production projects, 15) collection and removal of adult salmon to 

other streams, 16) artificial propagation, 17) a working policy 18) extension of salmon producing 

areas, 19) conclusions, and 20) literature cited. NOTE: Excellent synopsis of power and fisheries 

related interactions.

Fuhrer, Gregory J., Tanner, Dwight Q., Morace, Jennifer L., McKenzie, Stuart W., and Skach, Kenneth 

A. 1996. Water quality of the lower Columbia River Basin: analysis of current and historical waterquality data. Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4294. US Department of the Interior, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Abstract: The lower Columbia River Basin includes the river basins draining into the Columbia River 

below Bonneville Dam—the largest of which is the Willamette River. This report presents the results 

of a study by the U.S, Geological Survey, done in cooperation with the Lower Columbia River BiState Water-Quality Program, to describe the water-quality conditions in the lower Columbia River 

Basin by interpreting historical data collected and data collected in 1994. Historical water-quality data 

spanning more than 50 years and comprising more than 200 parameters were collated for 

interpretation in this report. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality, and the Washington Department of Ecology collected water-quality data at 10 sites in the 

lower Columbia River Basin from January to December of 1994. Water-quality constituents measured 

in 1994 were screened against U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) and State guidelines.

Arsenic, a human carcinogen, was detected in 15 of 16 samples in the lower Columbia River, but was 

not detected in any of the sampled tributaries. All 15 arsenic detections had concentrations that 

exceeded both the EPA human-health advisories for drinking water. Chromium was detected at all 

four Columbia River sites—most frequently in the Columbia River at Hayden Island. None of the 

chromium concentrations detected, however, exceeded water-quality criteria or guidelines. 
Measurements of suspended trace-element concentrations (trace-element concentrations associated 

with the suspended-sediment fraction) showed that the suspended form is the dominant transport 

phase for aluminum, iron, and manganese, whereas the dissolved form is the dominant transport 

phase for arsenic, barium, chromium, and copper. On the basis of tributary loads during summer lowflow months, sources of suspended silver, nickel, aluminum, and antimony exist in the lower 

Columbia River Basin, whereas the sources of suspended zinc and arsenic exist outside of the lower 

basin.

Twenty organic compounds were detected of the 47 compounds analyzed for this study. None of the 

organic compounds measured exceeded EPAs ambient water-quality criteria or drinking-water 

guidelines. The Willamette River at Portland had the largest number of detections, and all 20 

compounds were detected at one time or another at that site. The largest concentrations of the 

agricultural pesticides, atrazine, metolachlor, and simazine were detected in the Willamette River, 

where they were detected in 93, 86, 93 percent, respectively, of the samples collected. The highest 

concentrations of atrazine in the Willamette River were associated with the spring application and fall 

runoff periods. 

Both historical and current data showed that the highest water temperatures in the lower Columbia 

River Basin are present during August. For water years 1977-81 in the Columbia River at Bradwood 

(river mile 38.9), 75 percent of the daily mean water temperatures during August exceeded 20 degrees 

Celsius, a ”special condition“ criterion for the State of Washington. The special condition criterion 

was exceeded at four sites on the lower Columbia River during July and August. 1994—a period 

coinciding with season-high air temperatures and low streamflow. Trend tests using data from 1974 to 

1994 showed significant (p<0.05) upward trends for water temperature at the Columbia River at 

Warrendale and the Willamette River at Portland.

Concentrations of dissolved oxygen and total dissolved gas were above saturation levels during high 

stormflows in the lower Columbia River and the Willamette River during 1994. The high 

concentrations of total dissolved gas in the Columbia River exceeded Oregon and Washington State 

standards of 110 percent of saturation and were caused by spilling water at the Columbia River dams. 

Aquatic life in the lower Columbia River Basin was not subjected to low dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations. Comparison of dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the Willamette River from 1949—

58 to 1972—94 showed a significant increase in dissolved-oxygen concentrations during the lowstreamflow months of summer.

Trend tests showed significant (p,0.05) downward trends from 1973 to 1994 for three constituents at 

the Columbia River at Warrendale: phosphorus in unfiltered water, total dissolved solids, and specific 

conductance. These trends may be a consequence of more conservative agricultural practices in the 

area upstream from Warrendale.

Gangmark, H. A. 1957. Fluctuations in abundance of Columbia River chinook salmon, 1928-54. 

Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 189, 21 pages. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Notes general history of fishing seasons in late 1800s through 1940s (eg 1877, weekend 

closures of fishing were established.) A discussion of the influence of water use projects on chinook 

salmon in the Columbia River; mentions that dams influence migration routes and habitats of 

downstream migrants. Briefly discusses relative abundance of chinook juvenile migrants at 

Bonneville since 1938.

Idaho State. 1921. Eighth biennial report of the Fish & Game Warden of the State of Idaho, 1919-1920. 

Otto M. Jones, State Game Warden; Boise, Idaho. 
Abstract: (1) Note that in 1910 sunbeam Dam (Custer County), owned by the Sunbeam Dam 

Company, was constructed on the Salmon River, and was an absolute barrier to fish trying to reach 

the spawning grounds of small tributaries and lakes in the upper Salmon River (Stanley Basin 

District); and ineffective wooden fish ladder was constructed shortly after dam completion, but the 

first high water demolished the structure. (2) In 1920, State Game Warden ordered that a permanent 

fish ladder be constructed at Sunbeam Dam, and ready for operation by mid-summer. pages 45-47. 

(3) Notes a visit to the Grangeville Power & Light Company Dam on the Clearwater River, and 

consultations with the dam owners to devise a plan for the fishway over the dam. By November, the 

fishway had not been fully completed; the dam manager surmised that salmon could ascend the 

fishway in its current condition during high water, pages 47-48. (4) Notes on fishway and fish screen 

construction activities at the Deer Flat Reservoir and tributaries thereof (Boise River Basin area) page 

49. (5) Notes on visit and observations of diversion dams in the Weiser and Payette Basin; observes 

the fishway at the Black Canyon Dam on the Payette River, and salmon passage efeectiveness is 

questioned, but it is stated that considerable numbers of salmon were caught in upper water of the 

Payette river in 1920, pages 53-56. (6) Notes an estimate of five hundred ditches on the Lemhi River 

and its tributaries, page 58.

Idaho State. 1923. Ninth biennial report of the Fish & Game Warden of the State of Idaho, 1921-1922. 

Otto M. Jones, State Game Warden; Boise, Idaho. 

Abstract: (1) Photographs of sections of the upper Salmon River below the Middle Fork are illustrated 

on pages 16 and 17. (2) Notes and describes problem of constructing fishways at dams used for 

flooding/water release purposes of ponding and flushing logs downstream. State policy appeared to 

allow the watershed to be logged off using these dams as log transport mechanisms; fishways were 

not used during this watershed use phase (logging) because continuous stream flow was not ava ilable, 

page 36. (3) Notes on a photograph of the fishway that was installed by the Idaho Power Company at 

the Swan Falls Dam on the upper Snake River, during the 1921-1922 biennium, pages 36-38. (4) 

Note that during the 1921-1922 biennium, 58 dams were inspected, 25 fishways were constructed, 

and 11 dams were removed., page 38. (5) Notes that Idaho Fish & Game laws provide the department 

an ideal fish screen law, and describes the law, pages 38-39. (6) Photographs of the Sunbeam Dam 

and fishway project are illustrated on pages 40-41.

Idaho State. 1925. Tenth biennial report of the Fish & Game Warden of the State of Idaho, 1923-1924. 

R.E. Thomas, State Game Warden; Boise, Idaho. 

Abstract: (1) Notes that the year 1924 was marked with extreme drought of water supplies (streams, 

lakes, reservoirs), page 24. (2) Note that the Black Canyon Dam (US Bureau of Reclamation project) 

on the south fork of the Payette River is completed, and no facilities for fish passage is provided. 

Mentions that experiments of other states show that it is not practical to construct fishways at dams 

over 50 feet in height, page 27. (3) Notes that the policy of states, like California, require that a power 

company or private enterprise shall operate a fish hatchery, at its own expense, in lieu of building a 

fish ladder, page 27. (4) Note that desirable fish species were for the first time planted in waters of the 

Payette, Boise, Challis, Selway, Clearwater, and Nez Perce National Forests - a cooperative effort of 

the Forest Service and Idaho Fish & Game, page 95. (5) Note that the Middle Fork of the Salmon 

River is rugged and variable in character, and is a beautiful stream wholly within timbered areas of 

the National Forests, page 38. (6) Notes/table of fish plantings in the Middle Fork of the Salmon 

River, page 100. (7) Notes that redfish (kokannee?) were successfully planted in Big Redfish Lake in 

1921, page 101. (8) Note on the establishment of a small summer fish hatchery on the North Fork of 

the Payette River near Cascade, Idaho, page 116. (9) Notes that the Grangeville hatchery is 

established by the Commercial Clum of Grandeville (per Idaho Fish & Game Department) on 

Clearwater River near Grangeville, Idaho; eggs will be collected in the Clearwater and Lochsa basin, 

page 117. (10) Notation that small numbers of chinook salmon fingerlings are handled at Sandpoint 

and Hayspur Hatchery facilities, page 119. (11) Note of policy that every lake and stream is entirely 
different in charcteristics, and must be treated in an individual manner, page 126.

Jaske, R. T. and J.B. Goebel. 1967. Effects of dam construction on temperatures of the Columbia River. 

Journal of the American Water Works Association 59: 935-942.

Abstract: Author analyzes and correlates water temperature data/measurements (perhistorical records 

1933-1965) of Columbia River dam projects (Priest Rapids, Rocky Reach, Rock Island, and Grand 

Coulee) to determine efffects of dams on water temperature in Columbia River. Concludes that (1) 

erection of low head reservoirs on the mainstem Columbia has not produced significant change in 

average temperature of the river, (2) the erection of Grand Coulee Dam on Lake Roosevelt has 

resulted in a 30 day delay in the transport of water through the reservoir system, and (3) the erection 

of dams and reservoirs decreases expected variance in water temperature.

Johansen, Dorothy and Gates, Charles. 1967. Empire of the Columbia - a history of the Pacific 

Northwest. Second Edition; Harper & Row Publishers, New York, Evanston, and London 654 pages. 

Abstract: The authors provide a comprehensive history of the Columbia River basin in terms of its 

native inhabitants, early exploration and settlement, natural resources exploitation, 

industries/commerce development, politics and socio-economic policies. The following historical 

notes of historical milestones and fisheries/natural resources information were derived: 1) On 3 

December 1805, Lewis and Clark camp in a primitive log shelter on the south side of the Columbia 

River at the mouth of the Lewis and Clark River, and call the camp site Fort Clatsop after the Indians 

in the vicinity; p. 78; 2) In 1808, Finan McDonald (North West Company) built a temporary depot at 

Kootenai Falls; p. 89; 3) In September 1809, David Thompson (North West Company) selected the 

site for Kullyspel House on the eastern shore of Lake Pend d'Oreille; p. 89; 4) In the fall 1809, 

David Thompson (North West Company) bult Saleesh House near Thompson Falls on the Clarke 

Fork River, p. 89; 5) In 1810 or 1811, Finan McDonald and Jacques (Joco) Finlay of the North 

West Company built Spokane House near the present city of Spokane, WA; p. 89; 6) In 1811, 

David Stuart (expedition of Astorians-Pacific Fur Company) established Fort Okanogan at the 

confluence of the Okanogan and Columbia rivers; p. 102; 7) In December 1813, the North West 

Company takes possession of Fort Astoria, which was sold involuntarily by the Pacific Fur Company 

(John Jacob Astor) and it is renamed Fort George; p. 105; 8) In 1818, Donald McKenzie (North 

West Company) built Fort Nez Perce (REVIEWER's NOTE: later operated by the Hudson Bay 

Company and called Fort Walla Walla) as a trade center for the Nez Perce Indians, and a supply depot 

to the vast area explored and trapped by the north West Company; p. 107; 9) In 1819, Donald 

McKenzie (North West Company) ascended the Snake River from the mouth of the Clearwater River 

to the Burnt River in a boat ("bateau") p. 107; 10) In the summer of 1818, Fort George (Fort Astoria) 

was restored to possession of the US (per the Treaty of Ghent, 1814),and the North West company 

remained in charge of the post as a concession of John B Prevost (special agent of the US 

Government); p. 111; 11) In the fall of 1818, the US and Great Britain agree to the convention of 

1818 which established the boundary between the US and Canada at the 49th parallel from the Pacific 

to the Rockies; p. 112; 12) In 1838, a small water-powered sawmill, located about five miles east of 

Fort Vancouver (operated by John McLoughlin, Hudson bay company), employed six to ten saws and 

twent-five men, and produced lumber for rebuilding the Fort; p. 133; 13) In 1828, John McLoughlin 

and George Simpson (Hudson Bay Company) selected a site at Willamette Falls, where Simpson 

reported that "whole Forests of Timber can be floated into a very fine Mill Seat...[and] Saws enough 

could be employed to load the British Navy." Author notes that in 1831 timbers for a mill were cut at 

the spot, and the project was abandoned; p. 133; 14) Author notes farming activity of the Joh 

McLoughlin's operation (Hudson Bay company) in the lower Columbia: a) in 1839, the plows broke 

heavy sod at cowlitz Farsm..., b) farming was taking place in the Tualatin and Willamete valleys, 

cattle grazing on the Tualatin prairies, and c) in 1833, eight families formed the nucleus of farming 

community called French Prairie; p. 135; 15) In 1832, Capt. Nathaniel J. Wyeth established Fort 

Hall on the Snake River at the mouth of the Portneuf above American Falls; p. 146; 16) In 1832, 
Capt. Nathaniel J. Wyeth established Fort William at Wappatoo (Sauvies ) Island at the mouth of the 

Willamette River, in order to fish and pack salmon; p. 147; 17) In September 1835, Capt. Nathaniel 

J. Wyeth's company abandons Fort Hall on the Lewis River (Snake River); p. 147; 18) In spring 

1836, Capt. Nathaniel J. Wyeth's company abandons the fishing and packing operation at Wappatoo 

(Sauvies) Island at the mouth of the Willamette River, due to Hudson Bay Company competition; 

sails with a half cargo of fish; p. 147; 19) In 1839, Captain Edward Belcher, in command of a British 

naval squadron, arrived in the columbia River to survey the river's bar, channel, and inner anchorages, 

in anticipation of increased trade; p. 183; 20) In the summer of 1841, Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, 

commander of the US Exploring Expedition (1838-42) enters the Columbia River with two vessels; p. 

185; 21) In 1848, the US Congress passes the Organic Act that created the Territory of Oreogn; p. 

299; 22) Author notes that gold strikes were reported in the Santian and John Day Rivers (circa early 

1850s) p. 265; 23) Author notes that herds of cattle and strings of horses move north through the 

Cowlitz, Yakima, Wenatchee, and Okanogan valleys to supply the mining camps (circa late 1850s) p. 

265; 24) In 1860, the oregon Steam navigation Company (OSN) was organized (through a merger of 

small boat companies) to transport freight between portland (OR) and the mining region of Idaho; p. 

279; 25) In 1862, the Oregon Steam Navigation Company (OSN) built a six-mile railroad at the 

Cascades on the Washington side of the Columbia River and a fourteen-mile road running from The 

Dalles to beyond Celilo falls; p. 279; 26) Author notes land allocations to Land Grant Railroads 

(Northern Pacific, Central Pacific, and Union Pacific) in the Northwest, where they were subsidized 

with lands from the public domain; each was to receive a 200 foot right-of-way and sections of land 

to help finance construction (p. 305-315). Examples of these grants are: a) Northern pacific had a 

grant of lands of alternate sections through the columbia River and Cowlitz River Valley of 2,000,000 

acres of timber (estimated at $100 million) to build the Kalama to Tacoma railway(p.308), and b) 

Oregon Central Railraod (later part of the Northern Pacific, eventually merged with the Great 

Northern Railroad) was granted 5,000,000 acres in the Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue River 

Valleys (p. 309) to connect Portland to California; 27) In 1902, the US Congress passes the 

Newlands Act, under which the US Reclamation Service is created; the purposes of the Newlands Act 

was threefold: a) plan and construct major improvements by a federal agency, b) design and carry out 

each project so as to provide maximum benefits for the entire area in which it is located, and c) make 

federally financed projects self-liquidating; p. 392; 28) In 1923, the US Reclamation Service is 

renamed the US Reclamation Bureau; p. 392; 29) Author notes that private ownership of pacific

Northwest forest lands in 1913 as follows: a) Weyerhaeuser Timber company 26.1% of timberland in 

Washington, b) Weyerhaeuser Timber Company and Northern Pacific Railraod - 45.7% in 

Washington, c) Weyerhaeuser Timber company and Southern Pacific Railroad - 22.4% in Oreogn; p. 

402; 30) Author notes that before 1911 skid logging (by oxen, horses, mechanical donkey) was done 

on the ground, p. 403; 31) Author describes in 1918 two plans for development of water in the 

Columbia Basin for irrigation were proposed: a) gravity system bringingwater for Lake Pend 

d'Oreille (Idaho) to the Columbia Basin (series of canals, pumps, siphons), and b) dam and storage 

reservoir in the Grand Coulee area: politics, multiple purpose benefits, and economic costs dictated 

the final decision for the Grand Coulee plan; p. 514-4517; 320 In 1907, President Theodore 

Roosevelt appointed the Inland Waterways Commission to study the whole question of river 

development; and in 1908, the Inland Waterways Commission submitted its report that emphasized 

the need for federal policy to emphasize multiple use projects instead of single pupose projects; p. 

516; 33) In 1925, the US congress authorized House Document Number 308 for the Corps of 

Engineers to conduct river surveys covering matters such as flood control, power development, 

irrigation, navigation, and domestic water suppliesp; p. 516; 34) In 1932, the Corps of Engineers 

submitted their report on the Columbia River, referred to as the "308 Report ," to the US Congress; 

this report essentially recommended proceeding with the Grand Coulee project; and development of 

system of 10 multiple purpose dams on the Columbia River between the Canadian border and 

tidewater (Grande Coulee, Foster Creek, Chelan, Rocky Reach, Rock Island, Priest Rapids, Umatilla 

Rapids, John Day Rapids, The Dalles, and Bonneville); p. 516-517; 35) In 1932(?), the Washington 
State Legislature set up the Columbia Basin commission to promote the Grand Coulee project and 

state, under this authorizatio state relief funds were used to do sme prelilminary work at the project 

site; p. 517; 36) In March 1933, federal monies in the amount of $60 million were channelled 

through the Public Works Administration, created by President Franklin Roosevelt, to build a low 

head dam at Grand Coulee; p. 517; 37) In 1935, the US Congress passed the Rivers and Harbors 

Act, which included the formal approval of work on the Grand coulee Dam project, that thus far had 

been carried out under presidential order of funds under the FERA and WPA programs; p. 519; 38) 

In 1930, the Washington State Legislature passed the Public Utility District Law, that allowed an 

otherwise unincorporated area to organize as a utility district (PUD) to build dams and to generate, 

purchase, and distribute power; p. 521; 39) In 1920, the US Congress passed the Federal Power Act, 

under which the Federal Power Commission was created to license companies constructing facilities 

on navigable waters (which by definition came under federal jurisdiction); p. 521; 40) In 1937, the 

US Congress passed the Bonneville Administration Act that a) the Bonneville Dam facilities be 

operated by the Corps of Engineers, b) the Grand Coulee Dam be managed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and c) a civilian administration, appointed by the Secretary of Interior, be charged with 

the marketing of energy produced at both Bonneville and Grand Coulee dams; p. 527; 41) Author 

notes that in 1902 a raging fire devastated 700,000 acres of timber in Lewis County, Washington 

(known as the Yacolt burn); p. 544; 42) In 1949, the Washington State legislature declared the lower 

Columbia River watershed a sanctuary for the special purpose of building up native fish stocks; p. 

557; 43) In 1955, the City of Tacoma started construction of the Mayfield Dam project on the 

Cowlitz River, under authorization of the US Federal Power Commission; and the State of 

Washington instituted court action on behalf of the Washington State fisheries agencies, p. 57; 44) 

In 1958, the US Supreme Court rules against the instituted court action of the State of Washington on 

behalf of the Washington State fisheries agencies regarding the Mayfield Dam project on the Cowlitz 

River, p. 557; 45) In 1965, the City of Tacoma started construction of the Mossy Rock Dam project 

on the Cowlitz River, under authorization of the US Federal Power commission; p. 557; 46) In 1948, 

the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the Washington Department of Fisheries, and the Oregon Fish 

Commission enter a 20 year cooperative agreement, the Lower Columbia Fisheries Compensation 

Program, of fisheries research and development in the lower Columbia River watershed, p. 558.

Lelbhardt, Barbara. 1990. Law, environment, and social change in the Columbia basin: the Yakima 

Indian Nation as a case study, 1840-1933. Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and 

Social Policy, University of California at Berkeley, 1990, 488 pages. 

Abstract: A. Author provides a comprehensive history and legal premise of water rights and fishing 

issues of the Yakima Indian Nation within the Yakima and Columbia rivers basin; includes an 

extensive bibliography. Documents the social and economic dependence of the Yakima Indians on 

fisheries resources; provides some insight of salmon, water, and habitat of the Yakima Basin prior to 

and during development of fisheries and agricultural industries in the Yakima basin. The following 

historical notes of historical milestones and fisheries resources information were derived: 1) In 1850, 

the US Congress passes the Land Donation Act which provided for the appropriation of lands from 

the public domain in the terriitories (e.g. Oregon Territory); p. 104; 2) In 1873, the Washington 

Territorial legislature passed an act that allowed Yakima County farmers, miners, manufacturers- or 

anyone that could use water for "beneficial purposes" to construct diversion works necessary to 

convey water onto their non-riparian lands (An Act Regulating Irrigation and Water Rights in the 

County of Yakima, Washington Territory, 13 November 1873, Washington Laws 520-522), p. 245; 

3) In 1890, the Washington State Legislature passed a statute that provided for the appropriation of 

any unclaimed waters 'from any natural streams or lakes in the state" for irrigation and permitted the 

condemnation of rights of ways for ditches to carry water 91890 Washington laws 706, paragraph 1), 

p. 246; 4) In 1917, Washington State Legislature passed a law adopting an administrative water code 

that recognized prior appropriation as the only means by which an individual could acquire water 

rights (Riparian and Appropriation Rights, Washington laws 447-68), p. 247; 5) Around 1867, the 
Meninick/Shumit Ditch on Simcoe Creek (tributary to the yakima River) was constructed on the 

Yakima Indian Reservation; p. 250; 6) In 1906, the US Congress passed the Jones Act, that provided 

for funding the on-reservation portion of the US Reclamation Service's larger yakima irrigation 

project by allowing each Indian allottee to sell 60 acres of his or her allotment for bring water to the 

remaining twenty acres under the project; p. 254-255; 7) In 1891, the Northern Pacific, Yakima, 

Kittitas Irrigation Company, who filed on 1000 cfs of Yakima River water (in 1890) began 

construction of the Sunnyside irrigation project, and in that year built an adjustable dam (at the old 

Yakima dance house site) that was believed to have the capability to appropriate virutally the entire 

low flow when the river was at its lowest point; p. 258; 8) In 1892, the first 25 miles of the 

Sunnyside irrigation project is dedicated; p. 259; 9) In 1893, the Northern Pacific Railroad (owner of 

the Northern Pacific, Yakima, Kittitas Irrigation Company) declares bankruptcy during the Panic of 

1893; p. 259; 10) In 1894, the US Congress passed the Carey Act which allowed states to choose up 

to one million acres of arid land for irrigation development; p. 260; 11) In 1895, the Washington 

State legislature set up the Arid Lands Commission to investigate the possibility of developing lands 

between the Yakima and Columbia Rivers, above the Sunnyside irrigation project; p. 260; 12) Up to 

and through the 1890s individuals, farmers cooperatives, and ditch companies invested in their own 

small scale irrigation systems; p. 260; 13) In 1902, the US Congress passed the Newlands Act which 

created the Reclamation Service with the US Department of Interior; the Reclamation Service was 

empowered to provide planning, engineering, and financial assistance for irrigation projects; p. 261; 

14) In 1906, the US Reclamation Service purchases the Sunnyside irrigation project from the 

Northern Pacific, Yakima, Kittitas Irrigation company, p. 241; 15) In 1908, the US Supreme Court 

issued its decision on the Winters vs US, where the court held that Indians reserve water rights even 

when their treaties made no express mention of water; p. 270; 16) In 1905, the Washington irrigation 

Company, on their attorneys' advice blew up the dam of Union Gap irrigation Company at Lake Cle 

Elum when insufficient water thretened to destroy the crops on the Sunnyside Project; . p. 272; 17) 

In 1889, the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima River) was virtually drained of water by 

irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the Yakima Indian Reservation; p. 275; 18) 

In 1891, the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima River) was virtually drained of water by 

irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the Yakima Indian Reservation; . p. 275; 19) 

In 1892, (a dry summer), the US Bureau of Reclamation attempted to re divert water of Ahtaneum 

Creek, virtually drained of water by irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the 

Yakima Indian Reservation, but the north-side irrugation users brought suit against the Bureau's 

action; . p. 276; 20) In 1905 the US Secretary of Interior allocated 2065 cfs and 147 cfs of yakima 

River water respectively to the white water users and Yakima Indian water users; p. 292; 21) J.H. 

Lynch (in 1901) noted that the more water flowed in the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima 

River) in the early days than at present, and the runoff was also later, coming mostly after July 1st; he 

said " the watershed had not been burned off nor grazed excessively by sheep, hence more water". ; p. 

310; 22) In 1908, the Washington State Fish Commissioner asked the Reclamation Service to 

include fish ladders at Yakima project dams, but was told that fish ladders were not feasible, nor was 

the Reclamation Service responsible for meeting state fishery laws; p. 310-311; 23) The 

Washington State Fish commissioner (Mr. Darwin) closed the Klickitat River to food fishing (white 

commercial and Indian fishing) - not sport fishing - between 1915 and 1917, p. 373.

Moore, M., K. McLeod, and D. Reed. 1960. Conservation of fisheries resources in the Columbia River 

Basin. Fisheries, Volume III, Washington Department of Fisheries, 344 pages. 

Abstract: Volume III is comprised of revised editions of Volumes I and II, plus additional material. A 

general synopsis of water developments in the Columbia River basin, and the resulting salmon 

declines are noted; illustrates scope of water developments and their impacts on access to upstream 

areas, using a schematic for dams completed, under-construction, and planned (p. 122-123). discusses 

contribution of Columbia River stocks to coastal and inshore fishing areas. A historical review of 

hatcheries in the State of Washington is presented (pages 331-344); major phases of salmon 
hatcheries in Washington are noted as: Phase One 1890-1905: Period of concentration on the taking 

of large numbers of eggs with frey releases and very limited or no rearing and feeding. Phase Two: 

1906-1936: Period of large egg taking and short-term rearing. Phase Three: 1937-1945: Period of 

smaller egg takes, intensive rearing in ponds, migratory and disease studies. Phase Four: 1945-1949: 

Expansion and modernization of hatchery system with new stations, rebuilding of old stations and 

institution of the Columbia River Fisheries Devlopment Program. Phase Five: 1957-to date(1960): 

Period of initiation and development of fish farms in conjunction with hatcheries with goal of 

maximum use of all available fresh and saltwater areas possible for salmon production at reduced 

cost. Page 333. 

Needham, P. R. 1939. Migratory fishes and dam construction in west coast rivers. Transactions of the 

4th North American Wildlife Conference 1939: pages 300-304. 

Abstract: Author provides synopsis of man-induced activities (railroad construction, hydraulic 

mining, irrigation, domestic use) and their impacts on migratory salmonids in West coast rivers. Dam 

construction (Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams) is used as a particular of current activities that 

threaten anadromous salmonids; mentions that the Grand Coulee salvage operation at Rock Island 

Dam, and provides fish counts at Rock Island (1934-1937). Short discussion is given regarding dam 

construction activities and the purposes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin water plan. Recommends that 

mandatory fish investigations should be conducted for at least 5 years prior to actual start of 

construction of dams in waters affecting runs of migratory fish.

Netboy, Anthony. 1958. Salmon of the Pacific Northwest: fish versus dams. Binfords & Mort, 

Publishers, Portland, Oregon. 122 pages. 

Abstract: Author discusses: (1) Life history and migrations of Pacific species in the Columbia River; 

(2) Indian fisheries and methods prior to and after the settlement of white men in the Columbia basin; 

(3) Historical and contemporary alterations of the Columbia River (e.g. land use, pollution, and 

dams); (4) Fish passage, management, and propagation methods to overcome the human alterations in 

the Columbia River.

Netboy, Anthony. 1980. The Columbia River salmon and trout; their fight for survival. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle and London. 180 pages. 

Abstract: Author documents and describes (1) the pristine Columbia River; (2) The Columbia River 

Indian fishery; (3) life history of Columbia River salmon and steelhead trout species; (4) Intrusive 

alterations (e.g. irrigation, pollution, dams) of the watershed and consequences (e.g. decline of Pacific 

salmon species); (5) Fishery compensation programs in the Columbia River; and (6) Endanger 

species. Contains a comprehensive bibliography of Columbia River related historical and 

contemporary references.

O'Malley, H. 1935. Some problems which confront the fishery experts in the construction of dams in the 

Inland Empire. Northwest Science IX(1): 23-24 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author presents the problems of dam construction in the Columbia River as 1)successful 

passing of adults over dams, 2) getting small fish and steelhead kelts back to the sea, and 3) the 

complex problem of changed conditions brought about by the dams and artificial lakes. Mentions the 

four commissions that control the destiny of commercial and game fishes in the States of Washington 

and Oregon; the annual value and employment associated with the fishing industry; the budget and 

employment figure projected for construction of the Bonneville dam; fishways associated with the 

Rock Island dam; and the impassability of Grand Coulee dam. Discussion of the biological effects on 

native fish species, based on experiences in New England and other parts of the US; generalizes and 

predicts the ecological changes of the habitat and species resulting from water impoundments on the 

Columbia River. Briefly mentions the requirement for proper screening of power intakes and 

immediate steps to combat pollution, due to industrialization of the Inland Empire.
Oregon Master Fish Warden. 1909. Report of Oregon Master Fish Warden. Pacific Fisherman Annual 

Review, February 1909, pages 32-37. Seattle, Washington. 

Abstract: Author provides an extensive report on the status of the Oregon fish resource. Highlights of 

this article are: 1) irrigation ditches present a serious problem to young salmon due to the lack of 

prevention in diversion to fields; mentions that most of the diversion dams have fishways that provide 

passage for adult salmon. 2) Passage of laws banning fishing above the Sandy River, and restriction 

of lower Columbia River commercial fishing; extensive discussion of needed legislation, and closed 

areas/seasons. 3) Boundary problems between Oregon and Washington, in terms of fishing activities 

and enforcement of regulations. 4) Hatchery activities in the Columbia River (District No. 6).

Oregon State. 1907. Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon for year 1907 

to the legislative assembly, twenty-fourth regular session (1907). State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. 

W.S. Duniway, State Printer, 1907. 78-79 p.

Abstract: The Master Fish Warden (H.G. Van Dusen) states that "in view of the fear that the salmon 

of the Columbia River was not being rehabilitated through the medium of the system of artificial 

propagation, I am very pleased to be able to chronicle...that there has been a considerable increase in 

salmon produced by the Columbia River this year over last year..." This increase was for Chinook and 

steelhead in both Washington and Oregon. He mentions that chinook and steelhead over past five 

years, but decreases in silversides and bluebacks; and says that artificial propgation has been of 

assistance in the increase of chinook and steelhead. Page 7. Notes that hatcheries select to use large 

and strong fish (males) for egg fertilization, and do not use small males; attributes this selective 

practice to maintaining the 25 lb. average weight of chinook ovr the past seasons. Page 8. Notes that 

egg collection at facilities in Snake and Wallowa Rivers was very unsatisfactory, even though the fish 

racks were operated early, few fish go upstream this far, and those that did were three males to one 

female. But the eggtake at federal and state hatcheries (Oregon and Washington) below Celilo Falls 

the eggtake was good. page 13. Notes an inspection of the Santiam River (Willamette tributary) in 

regards to sites for artificial propagation activities. pages 17-18. Mentions that the first contract for 

the construction of the fishway over the falls of the Willamette River at Oregon City was completed 

and accepted by the state engineer on November 29, 1904. Mentions that as the Willamette Pulp and 

Paper Company completed a concrete dam at the falls, this dam caused water hydraulic problems in 

the fishway (upper pools) - the gradient of the upper portion of the fishway was too steep. This 

situation caused problems for the spring chinook migration over the falls. Surveys were conducted to 

make recommendations and provide cost estimates to remedy the fishway problem. Pages 20-24. 

Notes that hatchery station was established and operated on the McKenzie River at a site situated a 

couple of miles below Gates Creek; mentions that they took spawn of the early variety of chinook 

from August 15 to October 15th. States that liberated approximately 1.5 million fry of this 1905 

brood year into the McKenzie River in the immediate vicinity of the station during the months of 

January and February 1906. Pages 75-76. Notes that Wallowa Hatchery station did not secure any 

sockeye salmon spawn during the 1905 BY - (note: appears that this BY cycle is extinct or some 

lower river blockage prevented sockeye from upper area). page 78. Notes that by leaving racks of the 

Wallowa Hatchery in the river late, they discover a late run of silversides that passed the racks in the 

month of November, but were unable to hold them to spawning due to severe cold weather 

conditions. page 78. Notes that the Ontario hatchery station (Snake River at Swan Falls) left their 

rack in river late (until November 23rd) in hopes of collecting late running silversides, but none 

appeared. Page 84. Mentions the 1901 law passed by the Oregon State legislature that prohibited 

fishing above tide water and established fishing deadlines on all coast streams. page 129. Notes that 

fishway for the falls of the Willamette River at Oregon City provides excellent passage for early 

chinook in 1906, Page 132. Mentions request for two special deputy fish wardens to enfore laws 

regarding water diversions and dam obstructions that are causing mortality of young migrants going 

to sea; notes causes due to extensive development of power/mill dams across streams and irrigation 

projects that are taking water for irrigation puroses. Pages 134-135. Notes the needs for laws that 
assure better escapement to the spawning ground in the Columbia River; infers that hatcheries alone 

will not solve the problem of diminishing harvest to fishermen in the Columbia River. page 137. 

Notes that 1906 BY salmon returns (chinook and sockeye) in northeastern Oregon (Wallowa and 

Ontario Hatcheries) were poor; and that salmon runs in the lower Columbia River below Celilo Falls 

appeared to have been successful in running the gauntlet of net fishermen in the lower Columbia, 

Page 139. Mentions that he must secure eggs in order to assure shortage of Snake River stock (at 

Ontario Hatchery) four to five years hence, based on "...theory that Salmon return to the stream of 

their nativity to spawn..." Page 140.

Oregon State. 1913. Biennial report of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon to the 

legislative assembly, twenty-seventh regular session, 1913. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. Willis 

S. Duniway, State Printer, 1913. 

Abstract: Master Fish Warden (R.E. Clanton) describes the enactment of a policy of feeding fry in 

retaining ponds, at Oregon state hatchery facilities, until they are a sufficient age and size to protect 

themselves against predators. pages 13-16. Mentions that the policy of retaining and feeding fish to a 

larger size necessitates the need for investigations and research for some other food, other than liver, 

that is equal in nutritive value and less expensive. page 16. Notes the acceptance by the Bonneville 

Hatchery of 1.5 million sockeye salmon eggs from the US Bureau of Fisheries that were source from 

Yes Bay in southeastern Alaska. page 18. Mentions that the construction of dams associated with 

irrigation projects on the streams east of the Cascade Mountains have practically destroyed all of the 

spring chinook spawning grounds, and forced the state to secure the spawn of this species from the 

Willamette River and its tributaries. page 63. Note that the operations of the Salmon River hatchery 

in the Sandy River basin was abandoned in the fall of 1910 due to lack of chinook spawned, but was 

operated in the spring of 1912 to secure steelhead spawn. page 71. Mentions that chinook and 

silverside spawn were taken at the Wallowa hatchery station in 1912, page 72. Mentions 

improvements to the fishway (south-side) at Spray Dam (irrigation dam operated by farmers) on the 

John Day River is in good conditon, and recommends the construction of an additional fishway (north 

side). page 93-95. Notes the concept of constructing auxiliary retaining ponds on small streams near 

the Bonneville Central hatchery in order to rear salmon fry for release. Page 97-98. Notes on 

dietary/fish nutrition investigations for feeding fish different dietary mixture. pages 98-100. 

Discusses marking techniques and marking experiments to determine movements of salmon released 

from artificial propagation facilities. page 100-103. Mentions that the 1909 Oregon legislature 

appropriated $1000 for the purpose of destroying seals and sea lions at the mouth of the Columbia 

River.

Oregon State. 1939. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and 

the fortieth legislative assembly, 1939 . Fish Commission of the State of Oregon, 1939. 

Abstract: Reports that an authentic effort has been made to record all barriers, such as dams and other 

barriers to salmonid fisheries resources, in the state of Oregon. Information includes the number, 

type, location, height, length, etc. of barrier. Records will be analyzed and obstructions classified as to 

types, purposes, and possible effects on spawning areas; and finally analyzed as to whether or not 

adequate passage ways for fish are provided at each. page 29. A report of the Department of 

Research for the biennium ending 1938 is provided by Willis H. Rich, the temporary director. The 

Fish Commission of Oregon formed this department in 1938, page 35. Notes the policy of 

transferring fish by truck from a station on one stream to another is undesirable since it disturbs the 

homing instinct of salmon; in the future, pending available funds, the policy will be to establish and 

operate small stations on such streams of the state as are suitable for salmon runs. page 41. Note that 

the Bonneville station has been developed further as an experimental station for the development of 

methods for improvement of hatchery practices. page 42. Tables are provided that illustrate no., size 

at release (length in inches), and age of salmon liberated from Oregon facilities in 1937 and 1938, 

page 49.
Oregon State. 1941. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and 

forty-first legislative assembly, 1941. Fish Commission of the State of Oregon; Salem, Oregon, State 

Printing Office, 1941. 

Abstract: Notes the plans for a series of dams on the tributaries of the Willamette River, which poses 

a serious threat to the maintenance of some very important Columbia River salmon runs. At present 

(1940) projects have started on the Row, Coast Fork and Long Tom Rivers. page 38.

Oregon State. 1945. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and 

forty-third legislative assembly, 1945. Fish Commission of the State of Oregon; Salem, Oregon, 

State Printing Office, 1945. 

Abstract: Notes (1) that Mr. Livingston Stone of the US Fish Commission employs the practice of 

artificial propagation of salmon on the Clackamas River near the mouth of Clear Creek in 1876, page 

41. (2) Due to the construction of past and future dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries it 

generally agreed by scientists and others that the hope of maintaining and supporting the salmon runs 

in the Columbia Basin will rest largely upon artificial means of production. page 41. (3) That based 

on recent feeding experiments and observations of migratory habits of silver chinook and blueback 

salmon it has been determined necessary to feed these species for a period of 14 months at stations 

located onstreams in which the spawning areas are limited or destroyed. page 41. (4) The 

construction (proposed) of the Umatilla Dam on the Columbia will be much higher than Bonneville 

dam, and will constitute an insurmountable barrier for migration of salmon and salmon producing 

areas above the project will be lost for all time; thus is was decided to develop salmon production to 

the fullest extent in tributaries of Columbia below the proposed dam site. page 42.

Oregon State. 1949. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and 

forty-fifth legislative assembly, 1949. Fish Commission of the State of Oregon; Salem, Oregon, State 

Printing Office, 1949. 

Abstract: Notes that (1) of the Engineering Division has added hundreds of miles of spawning area 

for natural production through removal of impassable barriers and emplacement of fish ladders at 

falls and dams; and removal of logging debris from streams. page 5. (2) The Hatchery Division has 

restocked areas, rehabilitated by the Engineering Division, with young fingerling salmon, page 5. (3) 

More factual information of fisheries resources have been obtained by the Research Division, page 5. 

(4) A new fishway was installed at the Bear Creek Lumber Company Dam on Bear Creek (tributary 

of the Salmon River in Lincoln County). page 13. (5) The fishway at Sherar Falls on the Deschutes 

River, which was started in 1945, is completed. Spring chinook, blueback salmon, and steelhead 

frequenting this stream are now able to readily pass this natural falls at all water levels. page 14. (7) 

A new concrete fishway is completed at the Mountain States Power Company diversion dam on the 

South Santiam River, near Lebanon, Oregon; a cooperative project of the Oregon Game and the 

Oregon Fish Commission. (8) Hatchery biology and various factors (fish diseases, diets, and best time 

of liberation) are currently being studied. page 17. (9) Fish Commission started a new series of 

publications titled "Fish Commission Research Briefs," on April 1948, page 18.

Pacific Fisherman. 1903. Dams jeopardize fish industry. Pacific Fisherman I(3): 5.Seattle, Washington 

and Vancouver, B.C. 

Abstract: Notes the development of dams for power, irrigation and milling purposes are a jeopardy to 

the fishing industry due to their increasing number, and barrier to migration. Mentions that present 

law requires the construction of fishways at dams for salmon to ascend to areas above barriers; states 

immediate steps should be taken to remedy the matter.

Richardson, L. R. 1934. Observations on the effects of dams on lakes and streams. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 64: 457-460.

Abstract: Notes that impoundments prevent migration of desirable species, and some physiographic 
factors/alterations resulting from impounding waters.

Scheufele, Roy W. 1970. History of the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee. Prepared under 

sponsorship of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Committee. 

Abstract: A. Author presents a comprehensive details regarding the genesis, policy & objectives, 

actions, and chronology of meeting/events for the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, during 

the period of 1946-1967. Provides information regarding governmental legislation (laws) and policy 

framework, institutional relationships with other state and federal agencies in the Columbia basin, and 

accomplishments of the agency. NOTE: Reference is very important in terms of its description of 

policy and philosophy governing water and fisheries policy in the Columbia River basin during the 

period of 1946-1967. B. Genesis of Agency and Federal Action (pages 3-9): 1) In 1902, the US 

Congress passes the Reclamation Act; 2) In 1905, the US Congress establishes the US Forest 

Service; 3) In 1920, the US Congress passes the Federal Power Act; 4) In 1925, the US Congress 

passes a statute that directed the inventory of those streams in the US where power development 

appeared feasible and practical in coombination with navigation, flood control, and irrigation; 5) In 

1927, the US Congress passes the River and Harbor Act, which commenced the survey of Pacific 

Northwest streams, that were inventoried under the 1925 congressional statute; 6) In 1936, the US 

Congress passes the Flood Control Act; 7) In 1936 (?) the US Congress establishes the US Soils 

Conservation Service; 8) In 1943, the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission, an arm of 

the National Resources Planning Board, is abolished by the US Congress; 9) In July 1943, the 

governors of the Pacific Northwest States establish the Northwest States' Development Association to 

coordinate and correlate plans of member states as they relate to unified development of all the 

resources of the Pacific Northwest; 10) In December 1943, the Northwest States' Development 

Association prepares a program and governing principles of emergency and immediate post-war 

projects for the development of the Columbia Drainage Basin; 11) In summer 1939, the US 

Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and War (Corps of Engineers) enter a tripartitie agreement to 

coordinate their work, both in Washington DC and field regions; 12) In December 1943, the US 

Federal Power Commission joins the tripartite of the US Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and 

War (Corps of Engineers), and execute a quadpartite agreement that provided monthly meetings of 

these agencies to discuss restuls of studies/investigations, to adjust differences of opinions, and to 

promote ways/means for implementing other provisions of the agreement-representatives of these 

four Departments constituted the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Commission (FIABRC); 13) In 

February 1946, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, the second field committee of Federal 

Inter-Agency River Basin Commission, is established to facilitate progress on the multipurpose 

development projects presetnly authorized by congress (p. 7-9 provides details of conditions of the 

agreement.); 14) In 1965, the US Congress passes the Water Resources Planning Act; 15) In June 

1967, the Pacific River Basins Commission takes over the functions of the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee. C. A chonicle of agency meetings and general outcomes from these meetings is 

presented (pages 10-123) 1) In March 1947, the Assistant Secretary of Interior (Warner W. 

Gardner) sends a memorandum/recommendations to the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin 

Commission (FIABRC) that propose the construction of mainstem dams on the Columbia below 

Okanogan R. and on the Snake below the Salmon R., with the exception of the proposed McNary 

Dam, be postponed until 1958 (for 10 years) provided that alternate sources of power could be 

devloped to meet Bonneville Power Administration load demands; this moratorium period would 

allow the US Fish & Wildlife Service and state fisheries agencies to determine remedial measures 

(per research, studies, and planning) that could be taken to preserve the Columbia River fishery; p. 

22-23); 2) On 2 April 1947, the Assistant Secretary of Interior (Warner W. Gardner) memorandum 

was forwarded by the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Commission (FIABRC) to the Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee for study, discussion, and recommendations; 3) On 23 July 1947 at 

the 11th meeting of the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, (a) Fred Foster (US Fish & 

Wildlife Service) outlined the Lower Columbia River Fishery Program, consisting of obstruction 
removal, pollution abatement, diversion screening, fishway construction, hatchery construciton and 

fish sanctuaries - a program estimated at a cost of $20 million, and (b) a Fish & Wildlife 

subcommittee was established to coordinate and integrate fish and wildlife programs with water 

esource program; p. 25; 4) On 22 September 1947, the Fish & Wildlife Subcommittee (Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee) filed a report that summarized factual data relating to navigation, 

power, fish, irrigation, Indians, and National Defense, p. 26; 5) On 8 October 1947, at its 12 meeting, 

the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee unanimously approved and forwarded a letter to the 

Federal Inter-Agency river basin Commission (FIABRC) recommending that a) Grand Coulee power 

installations proceed, construction of Hungry Horse, Foster Creek, Detroit, and McNary Dam 

proceed, etc. b) authorized dams on the columbia River system not to be rescheduled, approval of the 

Lower Columbia River Fishery Program, and compensaiton of Treaty Indians, and c) upstream dams 

be authorized promptly and if authorized before 1958 they be constructed ahead of 

planned/unauthorized The Dalles, John Day and Arlington Dams unless the fish problem has been 

solved in the interim, etc., p. 26; 6) In 1950, the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee establishes 

the Fisheries Steering Committee, and this subcommittee prepares a comprehensive program of 

research and construction (to cost 25-50 million dollars) and proposed to finance it by a tax of fifty 

cents per kilowatt year (note proposal failed and caused an outcry from power interests) p. 27; 7) On 

17 September 1948, at its 21st meeting, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee authorized a 

Technical Subcommittee for Operating Plan to prepare an integrated and coordinated operating plan 

for the release and control of waters in connection with Columbia River development program (note 

plan was never consummated) p. 32; 8) On 10 November 1948 at its 22nd meeting of the columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee, the Corps of Engineers presented an eight volume "Review of the 

Columbia River and its Tributaries,: a report costing $5 million; p. 33; 9) On 28 June 1950 at its 40th 

meeting, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency committee approved an interim fishery research program 

(prepared by the Fish & Wildlife Subcommittee) that called for studies of fish passage at river 

obstructions, impoundment studies, artificial propagation, and studies of life history, trends and 

abundance, trout habitat and pollution, at an estimated $600,000 per year - another $500,000 was 

included for stream development and improvement; p. 46; 10) On 19 January 1955, the Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee directed the Fisheries Steering Committee to a) prepare an Upper 

Columbia River fishery program comparable to that in effect on the Lower Columbia River, b) a 

program of needed fishery research for the whole area, and c) explore ways and means of 

implementing/financing both programs; p. 83; 1) On 13 March 1957, the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee accepted the Fisheries Steering Committee report with respect to a) prepare an 

Upper Columbia River fishery program comparable to that in effect on the Lower Columbia River, 

and b) a program of needed fishery research for the whole area - established resarch priorities and 

recommendaitons as to what agency would carry out specific studies recommended; p. 91; 12) On 

13-14 November 1963, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee heard a panel of University of 

Washington academicians (James Crutchfield, W.F. Royce, D. Bevan, Robert Fletcher, R.C. Van 

Cleave, and R.W. Johnson) carry on extensive dialogues on "Fisheries in the Pacific Northwest - the 

academicians view this controversial issue," Don Bevan was very critical of fishery regulation; p. 

114; 13) On 14 December 1965 at the 132 meeting of the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, 

the Executive Subcommittee presented its recommendations on seven fishery proposals (previously 

submitted by the Fisheries Steering Committee on 6 October 1965) summarized as follows: Proposal 

1 - Greater Committee representation for salmon and steelhead, Proposal 2 - Reduction of the use of 

the Columbia River water for nuclear production to reduce heat pollution of the river, Proposal 3 -

Establishment of working contract with Canada on Fishery problem, Proposal 4 - Development of 

small watersheds for power production should be discontinued, Proposal 5 - Assure proper attention 

to fish requirements in any inter-basin water transfer studies, Proposal 6 - Fishery research should be 

continued, the Proposal 7 - The Columbia River Fishery Development program should be retained; 

14) On 29 September 1966 at its second Columbia -North Pacific study review, the Columbia Basin 

Inter-Agency Committee accepted the report of the Water Supply and Pollution Subcommittee 
entitled "Columbia River - Water Temperature Conditions and Research Requirements" report 

stemmed from one of the seven fishery proposals (previously submitted by the Fisheries Steering 

committee on 6 October 1965; p. 21); (15) On 9 June 1967, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency 

committee held its last meeting, and handed over its responsiblities, function and records to the new 

River Basins Commission, p. 122.

Smith, H. M. 1895. Notes on reconnaissance of the fisheries of the Pacific coast of the US in 1894. US 

Fish Commission Bulletin, vol. XIV, 1894 (1895), pp. 223-288. Washington, D.C. 

Abstract: Author notes his observations of the lower Columbia River commercial fishery and cannery 

operation during spring 1893. Note regarding Oregon legislation to construct a fishway at Willamette 

Falls. Author mentions the necessity for law to mandate emplacement of fishways at existing dams, a 

prohibition of the construction of additional dams, and a limitation on salmon at dams. Provides a 

report on the causes of salmon destruction in the headwaters, and suggested actions to stop the 

destruction.

Taft, A. C. 1940. A summary of the present status of dams versus migratory fishes on the Pacific coast 

with special reference to problems in California. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin 1(6): 205-208.

Abstract: The author states that few of the governmental and public agencies involved in the 

construction of dams in western US had any knowledge of the value or importance of fish as a natural 

resource; mentions that fisheries representation on boards was minimal. Use California laws and 

statutes as an example for the eleven western states to illustrate the legal machinery with which the 

fisheries administration has available in his dealings with water developers.

US Bureau of Fisheries. 1924. Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1923 with 

appendices. Department of Commerce , Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Abstract: Note about important former spawning grounds of blueback salmon of the Columbia River 

basin being made inaccessible by construction of power and irrigation works, and in 1922 an 

investigation was made to locate spawning places remaining; mentions spawning run to Sunbeam 

Dam (Salmon River), and an improvement to the fishway to make better access for fish bound for the 

Redfish Lakes, Page 17. Appendix VII: Progress in biological inquiries, 1923. Report of hte Division 

of Scientific Inquiry for the fiscal year 1923 (Document Nol. 956 issued February 2, 1924) by Willis 

H. Rich. Notes about sockeye mark, release, and adult returns of sockeye released at Herman Creek 

Hatchery (Oregon Fish Commission facility). Notes on Harlan B. Holmes; investigations of blueback 

spawning grounds in Columbia Basin, with mention to the large lakes of the upper Yakima, Wallowa, 

and Payette being rendered inaccessible by construction of dams and irrigation ditches, Pages 10-12. 

Appendix XIII: Propagation and Distribution of Food Fishes, fiscal year 1923 (Document No. 964 

issued September 3, 1924) by Glen C. Leach notes operational activities of Clackamas, Upper 

Clackamas, Little White Salmon, Big White Salmon, Washougal, Sandy, and Salmon (Idaho) fish 

culture facilities, Pages 33-37. Note that salmon pack was lightest inhistory, that egg take at all 

facilities (state and federal) with exception of the Kalma facility was proportionately low, that the 

number of spawners reaching the vicinity of hte stations was larger than expected, Page 33.

US Bureau of Fisheries. 1926. Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1925 with 

appendices. Department of Commerce , Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Abstract: Note of policy for providing passage at dams, and screening of irrigation ditches to protect 

anadromous fishes, Page II. Mention of marking experiments from 1916 through 1924. Note of 

discovery of blueback salmon spawning ground in Okanogan River, Page XIX. Appendix III: 

Progress in Biological Inquiries, July 1 to December 31, 1924 (Document No. 990 issued October 24, 

1925) by Willis H. Rich. Notes on marking experiments; mentions recapture of 14 five year old 

chinook (Little White Salmon Hatchery origin) in commercial fishery, Page 51. Note about discovery 

of blueback salmon spawning grounds in Okanogan River, Pages 51-52. Appendix IX: Propagation 
and Distribution of Food Fishes, fiscal year 1925 (Document No. 999 issued March 29, 1926) by 

Glen C. Leach notes operational activities of Clackamas, Upper Clackamas, Little White Salmon, Big 

White Salmon, Washougal, Sandy, and Sa lmon (Idaho) fish culture facilities, Pages 464-466.

US Bureau of Fisheries. 1932. Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1931 with 

appendices. Department of Commerce , Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Abstract: Notes on Fish Screen and Fish Ladder Investigations; mentions fish ladders at Wapato and 

Sunnyside Dams on the Yakima River, Page XXIV. Apppendix III: Progress in Biological Inquiries, 

1930 (issued December 4, 1931) by Elmer Higgins. Notes on Columbia River marking experiments, 

Page 591. Appendix IV: Propagation and Distribution of Food Fishes, fiscal year 1931 (issued April 

28, 1932) by Glen C. Leach notes operational activities of Clackamas, Upper Clackamas, Little White 

Salmon, Big White Salmon, and Salmon (Idaho) fish culture facilities, Pages 658-660.

US Bureau of Fisheries. 1936. Report of the US Commissioner of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1934 with 

appendices. Department of Commerce , Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Abstract: Appendix III: Progress in Biological Inquiries, 1933 (issued September 26, 1934) by Elmer 

Higgins. Notes on investigations concerning the protection of migratory fish at power dams on the 

Columbia River; J.A. Craig and Harlan B. Holmes were detailed to conduct studies of the effects of 

Grand Coulee Dam. Mention of spawning survey of spawning streams between Rock Island and 

Grand Coulee, and recommendations from Fish Commissions of Oregon and Washington, Pages 347-

348. Appendix IV: Propagation and Distribution of Food Fishes, fiscal year 1934 (issued June 7, 

1935) by Glen C. Leach notes operational activities of Clackamas, Upper Clackamas, Little White 

Salmon, Big White Salmon fish culture facilities, Page 403.

US Department of Commerce. 1923. Spawning grounds of blueback salmon in the Columbia Basin. 

Fisheries Service Bulletin No. 92, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Washington 

DC, January 2, 1923. 

Abstract: Notes the report of Harlan B. Holmes on his investigations of the spawning grounds of 

blueback salmon in the Columbia River during 1922. Mentions the following: 1) all of the well 

known areas formerly used by blueback have been rendered inaccessible by construction of dams and 

irrigation ditches, 2) the blueback spawning grounds in the Yakima Basin (Washington), Payette 

Lakes (Idaho), and Wallowa Lake (Oregon) are closed, 3) the investigation shows that a run of 

blueback pass up the Salmon River in Idaho at least as far as Sunbeam Dam, bound for the Red Fish 

lakes, and 4) evidence of blueback into Red Fish lakes justifies providing an efficient passage over 

Sunbeam Dam, p. 4-5.

US Department of Commerce. 1929. Improvements in fish screens for reducing losses in irrigation 

ditches. Fisheries Service Bulletin No. 164, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, 

Washington DC, January 2, 1929. 

Abstract: Notes: 1) Millions of salmon are lost to irrigation canals and ditches during their seaward 

migration; 2) The US Bureau of Fisheries secured Shirley Baker, an engineer of San Francisco, CA, 

to study devices in overcoming fish losses to irrigation canals/diversion; 3) Over 30 projects in 

Montana, Oregon, Idaho and Washington were visited; 4) Investigations disclosed that the 

mechanical screen type developed by the Oregon State Game Commission worked satisfactorily for 

smaller installations; 5) Much information for principles of screening designed resulted from studies 

of Professor F.O. Mullen, department of electrical engineering, Oregon Agricultural College; 6) T.H. 

Burkey of Pasadena, CA asked for the opportunity to demonstrate his screen design, and it worked 

well during a test on a 30 foot wide canal; 7) Investigators studied fish ladders for carrying fish over 

dams, and concluded that for dams over 100 feet or more no fish ladders or mechanical lifting devices 

were found in successful operation, p. 1-2.
US Department of Commerce. 1934. Bureau receives appropriation for Columbia River salmon work. 

Fisheries Service Bulletin No. 230, pages 1-2, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, 

Washington DC, July 1, 1934. 

Abstract: Notes that the Emergency Appropriation Act for 1935 included a provision for further work 

by the US Bureau of Fisheries on the propagation of salmon in the Columbia River district - $24,140 

to conduct practical and scientific investigations and research relative to salmon fisheries, and $9,650 

for repairs and alterations of the Bureau's present hatcheries in the district. Three research projects are 

proposed for fiscal year 1935: 1) A statistical study of the Columbia River fishery to determine 

whether or not the fish populations are decreasing in abundance at such a rate that additional 

protective measures are needed and analysis of the component parts of the salmon runs; 2) A study of 

migratory fish at power dams and irrgation canals in the Columbia River system to determine the 

success of the various devices employed for passing the migratory species over these obstructions; 

and 3) A biological study of the Columbia River fishery that includes a biological survey of all 

tributaries of the Columbia River, which form the present and past spawning grounds for migratory 

species, to determine the total spawning areas in each tributary, the extent to which unavailable areas 

can be recovered, and the effect of pollution and other unfavorable factors reducing the success of 

natural production; it will also include observation of life histories of various species, and studies of 

methods of artifical propagation and transplanting of migratory species to determine the possiblity of 

restoring depleted runs, of restocking tributaries that are now unproductive, and of improving the 

quality/ charactereof various runs of fish. p.1.

US Department of Commerce. 1934. Bureau receives appropriations for Columbia River salmon work. 

Fisheries Service Bulletin No. 230, p. 1-2. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Describes the Emergency Appropriation Act for 1935 to further the work of the US Bureau 

of Fisheries on the propagation of salmon in the Columbia River district; provides the description of 

research work to be conducted during 1935 in the Columbia River: 1) statistical and relative 

abundance studies, 2) protection of migratory fish at Columbia River power dams and irrigation 

projects, and 3) biological survey of the Columbia River tributaries.

US Department of Commerce. 1935. Bureau participates in northwest scientific meeting. Fisheries 

Service Bulletin No. 237, p. 5. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Note of attendance and presentations by F.A. Davidson, J.A. Craig, and H.B. Holmes at the 

Northwest Scientific Association at Spokane, Washington, on 28 and 29 December. Craig presented 

paper on influence of dams and irrigation on migratory fish species; H.B. Holmes presented paper on 

proposed methods and devices to pass fish over Bonneville Dam.

US Department of Commerce and Labor. 1917. The question of fishways. Economic Circular No. 24, 

Bureau of Fisheries, issued May 8, 1917. 

Abstract: Author (R.E. Coker, assistant in charge of scientific inquire) provides a paper regarding 1) 

the function of a fishway, 2) conditions governing the necessity for a fishway, 3) species of fish to be 

considered in connetion with fishways, and 4) summary and general conclusion. Notes that Bureau of 

fisheries knows of no fishways in US "that sucessfully pass salmon over dams more than 20 feet in 

height, and doubtless there are few fishways successful for dams over 12 feet in height, even for 

salmon." p.4

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1947. A program of rehabilitation of the Columbia River fisheries. 

Prepared jointly by State of Washington Department of Fisheries and State of Oregon Fish 

Commission, in cooperation with US Fish & Wildlife Service. 23 pages. 

Abstract: An informational pamphlet that provides an historical synopsis of federal dam construction 

(Bureau of Reclamation dams) in the Columbia basin; includes a 3-page table that gives vital statistics 

of Bureau of Reclamation dams in the Columbia watershed (facility operation, date of fish screeen 
operation, and geographic location). Outlines a six-year work program (type of work and estimated 

costs) for salmon fisheries rehabilitation.

Ward, H. B. 1927. The influence of a power dam in modifying conditions affecting the migration of 

salmon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 12, December 15, 1927, 

pages 827-833. 

Abstract: Author describes characteristics of Pacific Northwest streams that are inhabited by Pacific 

salmon species, and where water power/ dams projects are built. Discusses factors (biological and 

environmental) that affect migratory movement of salmon in streams- particularly water velocity and 

temperature; and the effects of dams on this migratory behavior, with respect to movement to and 

from the natal areas of salmon. Reports on efectiveness and associated problems of fish 

passage/handling devices to transport salmon to natal areas above a power project. Information and 

conclusions derived from author's investigations in the Baker River/ Lake Shannon (tributary to the 

Skagit River in Washington State); some conclusions based on Alaska sockeye investigations.

Ward, H. B. 1929. Further studies on the influence of a power dam in modifying conditions affecting the 

migration of salmon. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, January 15, 1929, 

pages 56-62. 

Abstract: Author describes characteristics of Pacific Northwest streams, that are inhabited by Pacific 

salmon species, and where water power/dams projects are built. Discusses factors (biological and 

environmental) that affect migratory movement of salmon in streams - particularly water velocity and 

temperature; and the effects of dams on this migratory behavior, with respect to movement to and 

from the natal areas of salmon. Reports on effectiveness and associated problems of fish 

passage/handling devices to transport salmon to natal areas above a power project. Information and 

conclusions derived from author's current and previous investigations in the Baker River/Lake 

Shannon (tributary to the Skagit River in Washington State); some conclusions based on Alaska 

sockeye investigations.

Washington State. 1907. 16th and 17th annual reports of the state fish commissioner and game warden: 

1905-1906. State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game, Seattle, Washington. C.W. 

Corham, Public Printer, 1907. 

Abstract: The commissioner (John L. Riseland) discusses the situation of fishing, fishing seasons, and 

disjointed regulations of Oregon and Washington in the lower Columbia River; expresses concern

that if the early season is not shortened, the Royal chinook will further decline and lead to situation 

where packers will have to depend on fall season rather than early and mid seasons. Provides 

newspaper quotes from the Portland Oregonian that support his statements. pages 10-14. Provides a 

report on Washington salmon hatcheries in the Columbia basin; notes that the Wenatchee Hatchery is 

the only hatchery tributary to the Columbia that propagates Silverside salmon (coho). Also mentions 

that manager of the Colville Hatchery could only acquire 90,000 silverside salmon eggs in the stream 

(Colville River); and that the facility was deemed not to operate. Notes that the Klickitat hatchery 

was never completed, and was abandoned in 1902, pages 24-25. Notes that the Wind River Logging 

company, on the Wind River, flooded the Wind River, carrying all their logs into the Columbia River; 

this citation documents the use of crib dams to contain logs and flush logs down the Wind River, page 

30. Notes that the Methow hatchery is the only remaining salmon hatchery (Colville, Little Spokane 

and Klickitat hatcheries are closed) on the east side of the Cascades to propagate silverside salmon; 

infers that Colville, Little Spokane and Klickitat Rivers have or had runs of coho salmon, pages 30-

131. Provides letters that note run and habitat conditons on the Klicktat, Colville, Wenatchee, and 

Lewis Rivers, Page 39-42.

Washington State. 1911. 20th and 21st annual reports of the state fish commissioner and ex-officio game 

warden: 1909-1910. State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game, Olympia, Washington. 
E.L. Boardman, Public Printer, 1911. 

Abstract: The commissioner (J.L. Riseland) reports: 1) State legislature appropriated $1000 for the 

extermination of seals and sea lions in the Columbia River district; letter of 1910 number of seals and 

sea lions exterminated. page 4; (2) Legislature passed a bill appropriating $5000 for repairing the 

Kalama hatchery buildings and building of rearing ponds, page 10; (3) The Walla Walla Trout 

hatchery was turned over to the state in early 1909, page 21; (4) The Lewis River Trout hatchery was 

constructed in early summer of 1909, located on Basket Creek in Clark County (about 20 miles from 

the city of Vancouver), page 21; (5) A review of activities at Columbia Basin Salmon hatcheries; a) 

mentions a logging crew putting logs into the Kalama River above the salmon hatchery, and causing 

damage to the hatchery racks; b) notes that logging and timber companies and state hatcheries 

operations (e.g. splash dams and log flushing) can coexist if arrangements similar to those of the state 

and the Wind River Logging Company can be agreed to page 26; and c) mentions that silverside 

salmon are the main species propagated at the Methow hatchery, and that irrigation ditches have 

always been a hardship to salmon from this facility.; (6) Note on experiments by columbia River 

cannery men: One at Hamilton Slough on the lower columbia River - captured 35 adult blueback and 

attempted to hold them, but they died; one at The Dalles, Oregon - adult chinook were capture with 

fish wheel, and held in lake-like impoundment, but fish died from fungus, and on pages 39-40 (7) 

Notes on investigation of chinook and silverside salmon in the Wenatchee River at Lamb-Davis Dam, 

at leavenworth, where salmon were counted in the fishway (978 counted, and another 60 taken by 

Indians at dam) and some were retained for eggtake; took about 30,000 eggs (shipped to Kalama 

Hatchery) until accident from pile driver sunk the fishway, and salmon ahd to be released to continue 

their way upstream to spawn. page 41.

Washington State. 1916. 24th and 25th annual reports of the state fish commissioner to the governor of 

the state of Washington: April 1, 1913 to March 31, 1915. State of Washington Department of 

Fisheries and Game, Olympia, Washington. Frank M. Lamborn, Public Printer, 1916. 

Abstract: The commissioner (L.H. Darwin) discusses: 1) fishway construction, and negotiations in 

regards to hydro-electric dams, both in western and eastern Washington (p.27-29); 2) appropriations 

and agreements on construction and operation of a new salmon and trout hatchery on the Wenatchee 

River near Leavenworth, WA (p. 30-31); 3) conflict in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho laws along the 

Columbia River (p. 34-35); 4) eyeing stations at several trout hatcheries in the Columbia Basin - Lake 

Chelan, Walla Walla, Lewis River, etc. (p. 45); 5) status of Columbia River district salmon hatcheries 

- questions the continued operation of the Methow hatchery (near Twisp) due to lack of spawn, 

improper location, and impact of irrigation on fry releases, etc. (p. 58-59); 6) acquisition of steelhead 

spawn in the upper Twisp River, instead of the lower river where fish are green (p. 58).

Washington State. 1924. 32nd and 33rd annual reports of the state supervisor of fisheries for the period: 

April 1, 1921 to March 31, 1923. State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game, Olympia, 

Washington. Frank M. Lamborn, Public Printer. 

Abstract : The State Supervisor (Ernest Seaborg) notes irrigation dams as a menace to anadromous 

fish in the Columbia River Basin (p. 11).

Washington State. 1925. 34th and 35th annual reports of the state supervisor of fisheries for the period: 

April 1, 1923 to March 31, 1925. State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game, Olympia, 

Washington. Jay Thomas, Public Printer, 1925. 

Abstract : The State Supervisor (Ernest Seaborg): 1) notes the activities and actions related to the 

application submitted by the Washington Irrigation and Development Company to construct a dam at 

Priest Rapids on the Columbia River (p. 11-12); 2) Notes that steelhead and silver salmon in the 

Methow River are doomed respectively because of 110% egg transfers from the Methow hatchery, 

and because of irrigation ditches and power dams (p. 27); 3) notes Wenatchee Hatchery efforts are 

failing due to irrigation and power dams being installed (p. 27); 4) notes that Klickitat, Spokane and 
Colville hatcheries failed to secure salmon spawn in their respective stream systems (p. 28); 5) notes 

that nine of the thirty-five state hatcheries have proven unsuccessful as a direct result of irrigation 

ditches and dams, and one was unsuccessful due to depletion by the commercial fishery (p. 29).

Washington State. 1932. 40th and 41st annual reports of the state department of fisheries and game, 

division of fisheries, for the period April 1, 1929 to March 31, 1931, fiscal years 1929 and 1930. 

State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game, Olympia, Washington. Jay Thomas, Public 

Printer, 1932. 

Abstract: The Director of Fish and Game (Charles R. Maybury); 1) The Washington state legislature 

passes an act that abolishes the fisheries board, and transfers the duties to a Director of Fisheries and 

Game (p. 3-4); 2) Notes regarding activities and mitigation recommendations associated with water 

developments at Rock Island on the Columbia River and Ariel on the Lewis River (Inland Power and 

Light company of Portland, Oregon) p. 28-31; 3) Notes on fish ladder construction projects and 

facilities completions at Sunnyside, Wapato, and prosser dams (p. 32).

DEGRADATION

Reference List

US Department of Commerce. 1932. Doctor Ellis demonstrates serious effects of mine pollution. 

Fisheries Service Bulletin No. 211, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Washington 

DC, December 1, 1932. 

Abstract: Notes the history and results of Dr. M.M. Ellis (US Bureau of Fisheries) who studied the 

pollution problem of Couer d'Alene River in Idaho, regarding wastes from silver, lead, and zinc

mines. Survey extended from Montana to Spokane River in Washington. Provids extensive 

information on extent and type of habitat degradation to streams and lakes caused from mining 

wastes. Mentions that aquatic production of Couer d'Alene Lake was showing decline in the southern 

end from 1911, and species of trout were scarce, p. 3-4.

HABITAT

Reference List

Attwell, J. 1974. Columbia River gorge history, Volume One. Fourth Printing, Talkie Books, 34 

Landing Road, Skamania, WA 98648, p. 151. 

Abstract: A history of the Columbia River in its early days is provided with respect to early 

inhabitants (Indians, explorers, white settlers), industry/commerce activities. References regarding 

fisheries and habitat characteristics of this area in this era are la cking in this reference. The following 

notes are related to milestones/events; 1) 1825 Fort Vancouver was the first settlement in what is 

now the state of Washington; p. 41; 2) 1837 John McLoughlin had farms at Fort Vancouver on the 

Cowlitz River; p. 45; 3) In 1846, Joel Palmer established the Columbia River Pack Trail, down the 

south side of the river from The Dalles to the Sandy River, for cattle; p. 50; 4) In 1851, Frances A. 

Chenowith established the Cascades Portage Railroad, the first railroad in the northwest, at the 

Cascades to portage cargo around the rapids on the Columbia River.

Bayha, Keith. 1974. Anatomy of a river Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, 1 Columbia 

River, P.O. Box 908, Vancouver, Washington 98660, Vancouver, Washington. 

Abstract: Authors present a comprehensive evaluation of water requirements for the Hell's Canyon 

reach of the Snake river, based on field surveys of March 1973. Surveys included collection of 

information regarding the time of travel of the stage wave and water mass, water quality, biological 

resources, etc. Includes photographs that illustrate the habitat (terrestrial and water) of this area.
Blanchard, R. E. 1977. Columbia River estuary physical alterations. Columbia River estuary, inventory 

of physical, biological and cultural characteristics 209-1 to-209-22.Columbia River Estuary 

Taskforce, Astoria, Oregon. 

Abstract: The author discusses the man-induced physical alterations river bed, and adjacent 

riparian/upland areas of the Columbia river estuary, caused by following projects/activities (1) 

dredging & disposal for improvement and maintenance of river navigation (2) dikes & levees for 

flood control/protection, and (3) jetties/pile dikes for protection the river mouth entrance. Description 

of project histories, types, methods, and locations are discussed and supporting illustrations (tables 

and figures) are presented. Land disposal of dredging spoils are given with respect site, location 

(approximate river mile), habitat type, wildlife affected, and area size (in acres).

Note : Excellent reference for generally determining the location of projects by typed and general 

impacts.

Bottom, D. and Jones, K. K. 1990. Species composition, distribution, and invertebrate prey of fish 

assemblages in the Columbia River estuary. Prog. Oceanogr. 25: 243-270 .

Abstract: Authors note that seasonality of abundance and species in an estuary reflect the timing of 

migration and the reproductive cycles of marine and anadromous species. Composition of the fish 

community and dominant species in the Columbia river estuary are similar to many smaller estuaries 

in the Pacific Northwest; these similarities reflect the influence of the nearshore marine environment 

on the fish community structure, and considerable physiological tolerance of many euryhaline 

species. The distribution of fish assemblages in the Columbia river estuary is influenced by large 

seasonal variation in river discharge and salinity; and within large areas and salinity zones, species 

assemblages use different habitat and prey. The distribution of abundance and the stomach fullness of 

fishes vary directly with the density of potential prey; it is hypothesized that fish production may be 

limited by dynamic physical processes that control prey availability or the feeding efficiencies of 

predators in the highly turbid water.

Bryant, F. G. 1949. A survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries with special reference to the 

management of its fishery resources. 2. Washington streams from the mouth of the Columbia River to 

and including the Klickitat River (Area I). Special Scientific Report No. 62, US Fish and Wildlife

Service, Department of Interior, Washington DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of tributaries at period in time, in 

terms of habitat and water flow/temperature. 103 pages.

Bryant, F. G. and Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries 4. Area III 

Washington streams from the Klickitat and Snake Rivers to Grand Coulee Dam, with notes on the 

Columbia and its tributaries above Grand Coulee Dam. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 37, 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of Columbia tributaries (within 

Washington State), above the Klickitat River (excluding the Snake River) at period in time, in terms 

of habitat and water flow/temperature.

Burner, C. J. 1951. Characteristics of spawning nests of Columbia River salmon. Fisheries Bulletin 

52(61): 97-110.US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Author describes spawning habitat and characteristics of chinook (spring, summer, fall) 

coho, chum, and sockeye, based on observations in Columbia tributaries (lower and upper).

Cobb, J. N. 1922. Protecting migrating Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Socie ty 

52: 146-153.

 Abstract: Author gives extensive information on the Yakima Basin regarding habitat, fish, and water 

development projects (Kennewick, Wapato, Sunnyside, Prosser) Provides general design and adult 
fish behavior (steelhead) at Sunnyside, Kennewick, and Prosser.

Columbia Basin Interagency Committee. 1957. Columbia River basin fishery program, part II: Inventory 

of streams and proposed improvements for the development of the fisheries resources. Fishery 

Steering Committee, Columbia Basin Interagency Committee, January 1957; 100 pages. 

Abstract: Provide a comprehensive inventory and listing of proposed improvements of 

habitat/rehabilitation projects and considerations for major tributaries of the Columbia basin above 

McNary Dam. Notes basin descriptions for each tributary, in terms of flow, temperature (air and 

water). Includes maps of tributary/basins showing geographical orientation of streams and proposed 

improvements.

Craig, J. A. 1935. The effects of power and irrigation projects on the migratory fish of the Columbia 

River. Northwest Science IX(1): 19-24 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses the effects of human land and water uses (logging, mining, power, and 

irrigation) on fisheries resources in the Columbia basin. Provides examples of habitat alterations 

imposed by these human uses. Briefly discusses life history and ecology of all anadromous salmonid 

species inhabiting the Columbia River basin. Discusses how the use of streams for power and 

irrigation purposes affect migratory salmon species: 1) obstacles that obstruct or delay migration of 

adult upstream to natal steams; and 2) injurious or delay impediments to downstream juvenile 

migration. Presents fishways and screening as mechanisms to protect fish, and the use of artificia l 

propagation in the case of high dams.

Davison, M. A. and Spencer, R. D. 1979. Columbia river islands land status survey, Columbian WhiteTailed Deer Study. Project E-I, Study 2, Job 4, Section 4. Washington Department of Game, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Abstract: Author provides information regarding the status of habitat and ownership for 28 islands, 

located within 107 mile section of the lower Columbia river between Bonneville Dam and Cathlamet, 

Washington. Provides information for each island, with respect to geographic location/acreage, 

ownership (deed abstract), floral communities/habitat, historical, present, future uses of island. 

Includes information regarding alterations in terms of dredging, fill, and forest removal, etc. Note: 

Excellent Reference

Downing, Alfred. 1980. The region of the upper Columbia River and how I saw it Ye Galleon Press, 

Fairfield, Washington. 

Abstract: Author provide a general accounting of his adventures and trip with Lt. T. Symons (U.S. 

Army) during the expedition down the upper Columbia river. No substantive information regarding 

fisheries-related habitat and stock was derived from a review of this monograph. A listing of books 

and periods was derived as a source for additional reference candidates.

Downs, J. L., Tiller, B. L., Witter, M., and Mazaika, R. 1996. Monitoring and mapping selected riparian 

habitat along the lower Snake River. PNNL-10953/UC-702: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, Washington. 

Dunn, J., Hockman, G., Howerton, J., and Tabor, J. 1984. Key mammals of the Columbia River estuary. 

Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Astoria, Oregon. 116 p. p.

Abstract: Authors provide extensive information about key mammalian species occurring the 

Columbia river estuary, with respect to 1) habitat use, 2) period of birth, 3) relationship to other 

trophic levels, and 4) critical habitat. Extensive tables and graphics are provide to illustrate spatial and 

temporal occurrence and inhabitation of key mammals within the Columbia river estuarine zone.
Franchere, Gabriel. 1969. Journal of a voyage on the north west coast of North America during the 

years 1811, 1812, 1813, and 1814 The Champlain Society, Toronto. 78,82-83, 96-97, 100-101, 110-

111, 142-143, 148-149, 152-157 p.

Abstract: Author provides an account of his observations and experiences during his travels in the 

Columbia river basin during the early 19th century. Briefly notes habitat, flora, and fauna at various 

points of travel up and down the Columbia river and its tributaries. General description of attributes 

for the Snake river mouth.

Glenn, John G. n.d. Diary of John G. Glenn, 1852 14-15 p.

Abstract: Author provides a brief description of the scenery and habitat of the Grand Ronde subbasin.

Good, James W. 1977. Columbia river tidal marshes. Columbia River estuary, inventory of physical, 

biological and cultural characteristics, Sect. 302-1 to 302-19. Columbia River Estuary Data 

Development Program. 

Abstract: The author identifies, describes, and enumerates the marsh habitat and communities of the 

Columbia river estuary. Provides illustrations (figures and tables) describing the location and area of 

tidal marsh habitat; and discusses each tidal marsh area with respect to community structure and 

alterations/impacts induced by human interventions (dredging, diking, etc.).

Note : Excellent reference for deriving a perspective of the estuarine habitat and associated 

communities prior to and after human intervention.

Good, James W. and Potter, George D. 1977. Columbia river estuary shoreline habitat and wildlife 

resources. Columbia River estuary, inventory of physical, biological and cultural characteristics, 

Sect. 303-1 to 303-33. Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, 

Abstract: The authors identify, describe, and enumerate the shoreline/riparian habitat and wildlife 

communities (waterfowl, birds, big game, furbearers, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and 

marine mammals) of the Columbia river estuary. Provide illustrations (figures and tables) describing 

the kinds, location and area of various wildlife and their associated habitat that presently occur within 

the estuarine zone of the Columbia river.

 Note: Excellent reference for deriving a perspective of the estuarine habitat and associated wildlife 

communities occurring in the shoreline/riparian zone of the Columbia river estuary.

Griffin, L. E. 1935. Certainties and risks affecting fisheries connected with damming the Columbia 

River. Northwest Science IX(1): 25-30 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses 1) the economic importance of anadromous and resident fish species, and 

the effects on dam construction on said species; 2) the importance and distribution of salmon harvest 

in the Columbia basin; 3) the certainties associated with current state of technology of fish passage 

systems, and risks associated with designs and plans to be incorporated at the Bonneville project; 4) 

recommended actions to reduce risks associated with current fish passage technology; 5) certainties 

and risks associated with sedimentation and submergence of fish habitat (sloughs and shallows) in the 

Bonneville impoundment; 6) the certainties and risks of power plants to migration of young salmon; 

and 7) turbine designs and devices to reduce the risks associated with hydropower operaton. Author 

alludes to a hypothesis that the Columbia impoundments (e.g. Bonneville) may present risks to the 

importance of the sloughs and shallow ponds contiguous to the river, as being very important as a 

food source to young salmon during their downstream migration.

Harden, Absolom B. 1847. Diary of Absolom B. Harden 1, 14-30 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author provides descriptions of his activities and the habitat in various sub-basins (e.g. 

Grand Ronde) of the Snake and Columbia river.
Hardesty, W. P. 1923. Drainage project on the Columbia adjoining Portland, Ore.: levees and pumping 

plant with three types of motor-driven pumps --new sluice gate --design --assessment system. 

Engineering News-Record 90(9): 395, 398.

Abstract: Reference discusses a drainage project on the Columbia river that encompasses the use of 

levees and a pumping plant for reclamation of 8,478 acres of low land in Multnomah County 

Drainage District No. 1 (near Portland, Oregon). The project affects the habitat characteristics of

Columbia Slough and adjacent lands. An eleven mile levee borders and is set back 50-100 ft from the 

river; a fringe of willows and cottonwoods lies between the river and levee. The enlargement of the 

slough is considered for use as a dilution vehicle for municipal sewage. Includes a map illustrating the 

Columbia Slough/project area and its orientation with the Columbia river reach adjacent to the 

Vancouver/Portland area.

Hazel, C. R. 1984. Avifauna of the Columbia River estuary. Columbia River Estuary Data Development, 

Astoria, Oregon. 85 p. p.

Abstract: Author presents and describes information regarding key avian species and their associated 

habitat, key avian habitats and their avian species composition, and food habits of key avian species 

within the Columbia river estuary. Tables and graphics are used to illustrate the spatial and temporal 

distribution of key avian species, and their associated habitats and food habits.

Hines, H. K. 1893. An illustrated history of the State of Washington. The Lewis Publishing Company, 

Chicago. 933 pages. 

Abstract: Author provides a very comprehensive history of the Washington and Oregon areas, during 

the pre-and post-Oregon Territory period (late 1770s to late 1880s); provides biographical sketches of 

principals of Washington state history. Limited notes regarding fisheries resources and habitat 

alternations are provided. NOTE: excellent reference for Washington and Oregon territorial history.

Idaho State. 1927. Eleventh biennial report of the Fish & Game Warden of the State of Idaho, 1925-

1926. R.E. Thomas, State Game Warden; Boise, Idaho. 

Abstract: (1) Photograph of the riparian zone of a section of the Selway River; near the junction with 

the Clearwater River, is illustrated on page 6. (2) The topography and status of lands of Idaho is 

generally described in terms of its habitat zones and types of development, page 7. (3) Photograph of 

the riparian zone of a section of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River is illustrated on page 18. (4) 

Photograph of the riparian zone near the junction of Camas Creek and the Middle Fork of the Salmon 

River is illustrated on page 28. (5) Description of the resident fish planting program in the Redfish 

Lake section of Idaho in 1925; this program illustrates the emphasis of the resident fishes 

management in lieu of anadromous species (e.g. Blueback salmon), page 47-48. (6) Photograph of the 

riparian zone of a section of the upper inlet to Redfish lake is illustrated on page 55. (7) Photograph 

of the Vernon and Edna Lakes area in the headwaters of the south fork of the Payette River is 

illustrated on page 58. (8) Note that a landlocked salmon, weighing slightly over six pounds was 

taken in the Salmon River a short distance below the outlet of Redfish Lake. NOTE: This fish may 

have been anadromous variety of blueback salmon? page 59. (9) Photograph of the riparian zone of a 

section (with a road along stream-side) of the Lochsa River, near Kooskia, Idaho County is illustrated 

on page 66.

Johnson, Overton and Winter, W. H. 1906. Route across the Rocky Mountains with a description of 

Oregon and California, their geographical features, their resources, soil, climate, productions, etc., 

1843. Chapters I & II. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society VII(1): 62-63, 88-103 p.

Abstract: Authors provide descriptive information regarding the habitat, geology, and flora/fauna of 

Oregon Territory between the Blue Mountains and the coast. Provides general descriptions of riparian 

habitat in terms of flora. NOTE: Excellent reference to derive habitat status/description prior to 

significant alteration due to settlement and resources development.
Johnson, Overton and Winter, W. H. 1906. Route across the Rocky Mountains with a description of 

Oregon and California, their geographical features, their resources, soil, climate, productions, etc., 

1843. Chapters III & IV. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society VII(2): 163-165, 174-179 

p.

Abstract: Authors provide descriptive information regarding the habitat, geology, and flora/fauna of

Oregon Territory in the Willamette River valley region and the Columbia River estuarine area (p. 

175-76). Provides general descriptions of riparian habitat in terms of flora. NOTE: Excellent 

reference to derive habitat status/description prior to significant alteration due to settlement and 

resources development.

Lancaster, Samuel C. 1915. The Columbia America's great highway. Press of Kilham Stationary and 

Printing Company, Portland, Oregon. 

Abstract: Author provides a general history of the Columbia basin, in terms of the human activities 

along the Columbia river. Excellent color photographs of the various locations along the Columbia 

river, viewed from the old Columbia highway route, are presented; illustrates various morphological 

attributes, habitat structure, etc. of these locations, situated on the lower Columbia river (Cascades 

area to Astoria).

Lelbhardt, Barbara. 1990. Law, environment, and social change in the Columbia basin: the Yakima 

Indian Nation as a case study, 1840-1933. Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and 

Social Policy, University of California at Berkeley, 1990, 488 pages. 

Abstract: A. Author provides a comprehensive history and legal premise of water rights and fishing 

issues of the Yakima Indian Nation within the Yakima and Columbia rivers basin; includes an 

extensive bibliography. Documents the social and economic dependence of the Yakima Indians on 

fisheries resources; provides some insight of salmon, water, and habitat of the Yakima Basin prior to 

and during development of fisheries and agricultural industries in the Yakima basin. The following 

historical notes of historical milestones and fisheries resources information were derived: 1) In 1850, 

the US Congress passes the Land Donation Act which provided for the appropriation of lands from 

the public domain in the terriitories (e.g. Oregon Territory); p. 104; 2) In 1873, the Washington 

Territorial legislature passed an act that allowed Yakima County farmers, miners, manufacturers- or 

anyone that could use water for "beneficial purposes" to construct diversion works necessary to 

convey water onto their non-riparian lands (An Act Regulating Irrigation and Water Rights in the 

County of Yakima, Washington Territory, 13 November 1873, Washington Laws 520-522), p. 245; 

3) In 1890, the Washington State Legislature passed a statute that provided for the appropriation of 

any unclaimed waters 'from any natural streams or lakes in the state" for irrigation and permitted the 

condemnation of rights of ways for ditches to carry water 91890 Washington laws 706, paragraph 1), 

p. 246; 4) In 1917, Washington State Legislature passed a law adopting an administrative water code 

that recognized prior appropriation as the only means by which an individual could acquire water 

rights (Riparian and Appropriation Rights, Washington laws 447-68), p. 247; 5) Around 1867, the 

Meninick/Shumit Ditch on Simcoe Creek (tributary to the yakima River) was constructed on the 

Yakima Indian Reservation; p. 250; 6) In 1906, the US Congress passed the Jones Act, that provided 

for funding the on-reservation portion of the US Reclamation Service's larger yakima irrigation 

project by allowing each Indian allottee to sell 60 acres of his or her allotment for bring water to the 

remaining twenty acres under the project; p. 254-255; 7) In 1891, the Northern Pacific, Yakima, 

Kittitas Irrigation Company, who filed on 1000 cfs of Yakima River water (in 1890) began 

construction of the Sunnyside irrigation project, and in that year built an adjustable dam (at the old 

Yakima dance house site) that was believed to have the capability to appropriate virutally the entire 

low flow when the river was at its lowest point; p. 258; 8) In 1892, the first 25 miles of the 

Sunnyside irrigation project is dedicated; p. 259; 9) In 1893, the Northern Pacific Railroad (owner of 

the Northern Pacific, Yakima, Kittitas Irrigation Company) declares bankruptcy during the Panic of 

1893; p. 259; 10) In 1894, the US Congress passed the Carey Act which allowed states to choose up 
to one million acres of arid land for irrigation development; p. 260; 11) In 1895, the Washington 

State legislature set up the Arid Lands Commission to investigate the possibility of developing lands 

between the Yakima and Columbia Rivers, above the Sunnyside irrigation project; p. 260; 12) Up to 

and through the 1890s individuals, farmers cooperatives, and ditch companies invested in their own 

small scale irrigation systems; p. 260; 13) In 1902, the US Congress passed the Newlands Act which 

created the Reclamation Service with the US Department of Interior; the Reclamation Service was 

empowered to provide planning, engineering, and financial assistance for irrigation projects; p. 261; 

14) In 1906, the US Reclamation Service purchases the Sunnyside irrigation project from the 

Northern Pacific, Yakima, Kittitas Irrigation company, p. 241; 15) In 1908, the US Supreme Court 

issued its decision on the Winters vs US, where the court held that Indians reserve water rights even 

when their treaties made no express mention of water; p. 270; 16) In 1905, the Washington irrigation 

Company, on their attorneys' advice blew up the dam of Union Gap irrigation Company at Lake Cle 

Elum when insufficient water thretened to destroy the crops on the Sunnyside Project; . p. 272; 17) 

In 1889, the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima River) was virtually drained of water by 

irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the Yakima Indian Reservation; p. 275; 18) 

In 1891, the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima River) was virtually drained of water by 

irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the Yakima Indian Reservation; . p. 275; 19) 

In 1892, (a dry summer), the US Bureau of Reclamation attempted to re divert water of Ahtaneum 

Creek, virtually drained of water by irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the 

Yakima Indian Reservation, but the north-side irrugation users brought suit against the Bureau's 

action; . p. 276; 20) In 1905 the US Secretary of Interior allocated 2065 cfs and 147 cfs of yakima 

River water respectively to the white water users and Yakima Indian water users; p. 292; 21) J.H. 

Lynch (in 1901) noted that the more water flowed in the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima 

River) in the early days than at present, and the runoff was also later, coming mostly after July 1st; he 

said " the watershed had not been burned off nor grazed excessively by sheep, hence more water". ; p. 

310; 22) In 1908, the Washington State Fish Commissioner asked the Reclamation Service to 

include fish ladders at Yakima project dams, but was told that fish ladders were not feasible, nor was 

the Reclamation Service responsible for meeting state fishery laws; p. 310-311; 23) The 

Washington State Fish commissioner (Mr. Darwin) closed the Klickitat River to food fishing (white 

commercial and Indian fishing) - not sport fishing - between 1915 and 1917, p. 373.

Mattson, C. R. 1948. Spawning ground studies of Willamette River spring chinook salmon. Oregon 

Fish Commission, Research Briefs 1(2): 21-32. 

Abstract: Provides extensive and comprehensive environment/habitat/distribution information for 

chinook salmon in the Willamette River and its tributaries.

May, Dean L. 1994. Three frontiers - family, land, and society in the American west, 1850-1900. 

Cambridge University Press, 313 pages. 

Abstract: Author provides the history of settlement and development of the Willamette Valley region 

(Oregon), the Utah Valley region (Utah), and the Boise Valley region (Idaho) from the 1840-1900. 

He documents and illustrates agrarian development in these regions (during and after the mining era); 

provides a perspective of milestones/events affecting settlement and expansion of population in these 

regions. Note: an excellent documentation of mining and agriculture development in terms of habitat 

alteration of the Boise River basin/upper Snake river region of Idaho during the 1850-1900 era. The 

following notes are related to this development in Boise and Willamette basins: 1) An excellent 

description of the habitat surrounding the Boise River is provided by early explorers/settlers such as 

John C. Fremont (1843) and Basil Nelson Longsworth (18 August 1853)p. 20-21; 2) Short 

description of the habitat in the region of the Santiam and Pudding Rivers region in the 

1840s..."largely open prairie land begins to break into rolling hills...scattered thickets of Douglas fir, 

hemlock, spruce, incense cedar in the 1840s", p. 26; 3) Short description of the habitat in the 

Middleton region of the lower Boise River in 1863..."bottoms were wooded, covered with brush, and 
often cut through with sloughs...and subirrigated by the low water table throughout the season." p. 37 

(Map of Middleton area, and rivers, p. 36).

McClung, James S. 1862. Journal to Oregon, April 22nd 1862 1, 71-80 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author provides descriptions of habitat (e.g. forest/timber) and water resources (e.g. 

springs) in various sub-basins (e.g. Powder and Grande Ronde) to the Snake and Columbia Rivers.

McIntosh, B. A., J.R. Sedell, J.E. Smith, R.C. Wissmar, S.E. Clarke, G.H. Reeves, and L.A. Brown. 

1994. Historical changes in fish habitat for select river basins of eastern Oregon and Washington. 

Northwest Science 68, Special Issue: 36-53.

Abstract: Authors compare the changes in and condition of fisheries habitat in a subset of historical 

surveyed streams (Tucannon, Asotin, Grande Ronde, yakima, Wenatchee and Methow basins) by 

comparing the US Bureau of Fisheries surveys (1934-1942) with resurveys of 1990-1992. Habitat 

information and analyses regarding pool habitat, substrate composition, and riparian zone are 

provided.

McIntosh, Bruce A. 1992. Historical changes in anadromous fish habitat in the Upper Grande Ronde 

River, Oregon, 1941-1990. Masters Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 1-88 

(complete) p.

McIntosh, Bruce A., Sedell, James R., Smith, Jeanette E., Wissmar, R. C., Clarke, S. E., Reeves, G. H., 

Brown, L. A., Hessburg, Paul F., and Everett, Richard L. Management history of eastside 

ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. General Technical Report PNWGTR-321. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station in 

cooperation with Pacific Northwest Region, 8-25 p.

Merrel, T. R. 1951. Stream improvement as conducted in Oregon on the Clatskanie River and tributaries. 

Oregon Fish Commission, Research Briefs 3(2): 41-47. 

Abstract: Provides information regarding the habitat of this river system, and associated 

recommendations for habitat improvements in tributaries/areas negatively impacted by logging 

activities 15 years previous.

Moore, Cecil R. 1939. The Willamette river project. Military Engineer 31(177): 208-211.

Abstract : Author provides a brief history, and geophysical, hydrologic, climatologic description of 

the Willamette river basin. Discusses and describes the Willamette basin plan that will includes 1) 

navigation improvement from the mouth to upstream of Willamette Falls, 2) irrigation (seven storage 

projects of 335,000 acre ft) and stream purification projects. Mentions loss and mitigation of fish 

habitat and mitigating factors for this loss in terms of improved water flows and quality. Provides 

illustrative tables for reservoir projects and project costs- pp. 208-211.

Mudd, D., Boe, L., and Bugert, R. 1980. Evaluation of wildlife habitat developed on government 

project lands along Snake river in Washington. Washingtn Department of Game, Habitat 

Management Division, 62, maps p.

Abstract: Report provides a baseline of wildlife resources and habitat in areas of the lower Snake 

river affected by the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite dam projects.

Nielson, R. S. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries, Part 5. Special Scientific Report 

Fisheries No. 38, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla 

and Walla Walla River systems at period in time, in terms of habitat and water flow/temperature.
O'Malley, H. 1935. Some problems which confront the fishery experts in the construction of dams in the 

Inland Empire. Northwest Science IX(1): 23-24 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author presents the problems of dam construction in the Columbia River as 1)successful 

passing of adults over dams, 2) getting small fish and steelhead kelts back to the sea, and 3) the 

complex problem of changed conditions brought about by the dams and artificial lakes. Mentions the 

four commissions that control the destiny of commercial and game fishes in the States of Washington 

and Oregon; the annual value and employment associated with the fishing industry; the budget and 

employment figure projected for construction of the Bonneville dam; fishways associated with the 

Rock Island dam; and the impassability of Grand Coulee dam. Discussion of the biological effects on 

native fish species, based on experiences in New England and other parts of the US; generalizes and 

predicts the ecological changes of the habitat and species resulting from water impoundments on the 

Columbia River. Briefly mentions the requirement for proper screening of power intakes and 

immediate steps to combat pollution, due to industrialization of the Inland Empire.

Oregon State. 1903. Annual Reports of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon to the 

legislative assembly, Twenty-second regular session, 1903. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. W.H. 

Leeds, State Printer, 1903. 14-21, 34-37, 64-79, 116-119 p.

Abstract: The Master Fish Warden (H.G. Van Dusen) provides detailed accounts for investigations of 

various waters/streams, such as the Salmon River (tributary to the Sandy River), Clackamas River, 

the McKenzie River (tributary to the Willamette River), Gate Creek and Blue River (tributary to the 

McKenzie River), Santiam River (tributary to the Willamette River), Molalla River (tributary to the 

Willamette River), Tanner and Eagle Creek (tributary to the Columbia River near Bonneville), 

Deschutes River (tributary to the Columbia River), Crooked River (tributary to the Deschutes River), 

John Day River (tributary to the Columbia River), Grande Ronde River and its tributaries including 

Wallowa lake (tributary to the Columbia River), Imnaha River (tributary to the Snake River), Powder 

River (tributary to the Snake River), Malheur River (tributary to the Snake River), Owyhee River 

(tributary to the Snake River), and Snake River. Includes notations of salmon species presence and 

timing, utilization, habitat/habitat alteration, etc. pages 10-21. Notes fish investigative/propagation 

activities at the Grande Ronde River Experimental Station at the mouth of the Wenaha River 

(tributary to Grande Ronde River at approximately RM 50); provides information on fish species 

passage to a fish rack across the Wenaha River; blueback pass this point between June 20th and July 

20th, silversides begin showing on September 14th (silverside eggtake conducted mid-October into 

early December, summary table, Page 36. Notes during investigations/field work at the Swan Falls 

Experimental Station on the Snake River, that chinook salmon began to arrive at this point on 

September 1st, and fish were spawned from October 12th to November 13th. page 37. Notes that 

Oregon State passed a law in 1899 that required the licensing of the salmon and sturgeon industry 

(fishing and processing) some of funds derived from this licensing law were to be used for artificial 

propagation of fishes. page 88. Notes on the Grande Ronde River Hatchery Station: chinook salmon 

begin arriving immediately after rakc is emplaced in the Wenaha River completed on July 4th. 

Holding rack enclosre is full by September 1st, and first eggs are taken on September 13th and 

completed October 31. First sockeye eggs were taken october 21st. Pages 116-118. Notes on the 

Ontario hatchery Station on the Snake River (lies on the left bank of the Snake River directly opposite 

Morton's Island, near Ontario Oregon); rack barrier is emplaced on August 25th, and next day 300 

chinook salmon were already in the racks; run continued at this rate per day until last of September; 

eggtake was conducted from October 13th through November 8th. pages 119-121.

Oregon State. 1947. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and 

forty-fourth legislative assembly, 1947. Fish Commission of the State of Oregon; Salem, Oregon, 

State Printing Office, 1947. 

Abstract: Notes that (1) the State of Oregon is entering a period of expansion and industrialization, 

and population increase where development of rivers will deplete fisheries resources; the early history 
of the state saw the destruction of salmon spawning habitat. (2) the policy of the Oregon Fish 

Commission is (a) to study the causes and effects of decline of varios fisheries, (b) to study methods 

of rehabilitation of species involved, and (c) to evaluate and increase efficiency of artificial 

propagation and to use hatcheries to supplant and rehabilitate, but not replace, natural spawning. (3) 

A new fishway is constructed by the Oregon Iron and Steel Company at their dam in the Tualatin 

River, tributary of the Willamette River, under the supervision of the Division of Engineering 

(Oregon Fish Commission) page 13. (4) A fishway at Eagle Creek Falls on Eagle Creek (tributary to 

the Clackamas River) is removed under the supervision of the Division of Engineering (Oregon Fish 

Commission), page 13. (6) A new dam is constructed by the Hines Lumber Company on the North 

Fork of the Willamette River, at Westfir (Oregon) construction of an adequate fishway will be 

completed by early summer 1947. page 14.

Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries, Part 6 Area V - Snake River system 

from mouth through Grande Ronde River. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 39, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of the Snake and Grande Ronde 

River systems at period in time, in terms of habitat and water flow/temperature.

Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries, Part 7 - Snake River from above the 

Grande Ronde River through the Payette River. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 40, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of the Snake above the Grande 

Ronde, Salmon, Weiser, and Payette Systems at period in time, in terms of habitat and water 

flow/temperature.

Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries, Part 8 Area VII - Snake River from 

above the Payette River to Upper Salmon Falls. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 57, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of the main Snake and its tributaries 

above the Payette River at period in time, in terms of habitat and water flow/temperature.

Parkhurst, Z. E., Bryant, F. G., and Nelson, R. S. 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries 

- Part III. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 36, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of Columbia River tributaries in 

Oregon and the Willamette system at period in time, in terms of habitat and water flow/temperature.

Porter, Elizabeth Lee. 1864. Crossing the plains, a diary by Elizabeth Lee Porter 1864 1, 6-7 

(incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author gives abbreviated diary of her activities and observations from Iowa to Oregon; 

some brief notes of climate and habitat of various sub-basins (e.g. Burnt, Powder and Grand Ronde) 

to the Snake and Columbia river.

Renshaw, Robert Harvey. 1851. Diary of Robert Harvey Renshaw 1, 24-35 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author notes his activities and habitat of various sub-basins (e.g. upper Snake tributaries, 

Burnt, Powder, and Grand Ronde)to the Snake and Columbia rivers. Gives brief mention to the 

timber and water of the Grand Ronde area.

Rich, E. E. 1950. Peter Skene Ogden's Snake country journals, 1824-25 abd 1825-26 The Hudson's Bay 

Record Society, London. 92-93, 126-135, 166-171, 190-193 p.

Abstract: Author provides an account of his observations and experiences during his travels in the 
Columbia river basin during the early 19th century. Briefly notes habitat, flora, and fauna at various 

points of travel in the various sub-basins (e.g. Bruneau, Payette, Malheur, Owyhee, etc.)of the Upper 

Snake river, and the Umatilla, John Day, Deschutes, Hood, and Willamette sub-basins of the 

Columbia river.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Payette river to the 

Burnt river (River Brule). - observation of dead salmon (carcasses) along the river. 

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of Burnt river (River Brule) 

to the Malheur River.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of Burnt river (River Brule) 

to the King Hill creek.- note of sturgeon present in this area during spring.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Payette river mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Owyhee river mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Owyhee river mouth 

to the Malheur river mouth-notes water flow (spring freshet condition).

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity above the Owyhee river 

mouth to the Bruneau river mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Bruneau river mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity above the Owyhee river 

mouth to the Bruneau river mouth - notes seeing salmon ascending the stream.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity above the Owyhee river 

mouth to the Bruneau river mouth - notes regarding Indian fishing success/salmon presence in the 

vicinity.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity above the Bruneau river 

mouth to Alkali creek mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Bruneau and Snake 

river confluence.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity below Big Wood river to the 

Bruneau river.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of King Hill Creek.

Scheufele, Roy W. 1970. History of the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee. Prepared under 

sponsorship of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Committee. 

Abstract: A. Author presents a comprehensive details regarding the genesis, policy & objectives, 

actions, and chronology of meeting/events for the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, during 

the period of 1946-1967. Provides information regarding governmental legislation (laws) and policy 

framework, institutional relationships with other state and federal agencies in the Columbia basin, and 

accomplishments of the agency. NOTE: Reference is very important in terms of its description of 

policy and philosophy governing water and fisheries policy in the Columbia River basin during the 

period of 1946-1967. B. Genesis of Agency and Federal Action (pages 3-9): 1) In 1902, the US 

Congress passes the Reclamation Act; 2) In 1905, the US Congress establishes the US Forest 

Service; 3) In 1920, the US Congress passes the Federal Power Act; 4) In 1925, the US Congress 

passes a statute that directed the inventory of those streams in the US where power development 

appeared feasible and practical in coombination with navigation, flood control, and irrigation; 5) In 

1927, the US Congress passes the River and Harbor Act, which commenced the survey of Pacific 

Northwest streams, that were inventoried under the 1925 congressional statute; 6) In 1936, the US 

Congress passes the Flood Control Act; 7) In 1936 (?) the US Congress establishes the US Soils 

Conservation Service; 8) In 1943, the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission, an arm of 

the National Resources Planning Board, is abolished by the US Congress; 9) In July 1943, the 

governors of the Pacific Northwest States establish the Northwest States' Development Association to 

coordinate and correlate plans of member states as they relate to unified development of all the 
resources of the Pacific Northwest; 10) In December 1943, the Northwest States' Development 

Association prepares a program and governing principles of emergency and immediate post-war 

projects for the development of the Columbia Drainage Basin; 11) In summer 1939, the US 

Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and War (Corps of Engineers) enter a tripartitie agreement to 

coordinate their work, both in Washington DC and field regions; 12) In December 1943, the US 

Federal Power Commission joins the tripartite of the US Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and 

War (Corps of Engineers), and execute a quadpartite agreement that provided monthly meetings of 

these agencies to discuss restuls of studies/investigations, to adjust differences of opinions, and to 

promote ways/means for implementing other provisions of the agreement-representatives of these 

four Departments constituted the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Commission (FIABRC); 13) In 

February 1946, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, the second field committee of Federal 

Inter-Agency River Basin Commission, is established to facilitate progress on the multipurpose 

development projects presetnly authorized by congress (p. 7-9 provides details of conditions of the 

agreement.); 14) In 1965, the US Congress passes the Water Resources Planning Act; 15) In June 

1967, the Pacific River Basins Commission takes over the functions of the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee. C. A chonicle of agency meetings and general outcomes from these meetings is 

presented (pages 10-123) 1) In March 1947, the Assistant Secretary of Interior (Warner W. 

Gardner) sends a memorandum/recommendations to the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin 

Commission (FIABRC) that propose the construction of mainstem dams on the Columbia below 

Okanogan R. and on the Snake below the Salmon R., with the exception of the proposed McNary 

Dam, be postponed until 1958 (for 10 years) provided that alternate sources of power could be 

devloped to meet Bonneville Power Administration load demands; this moratorium period would 

allow the US Fish & Wildlife Service and state fisheries agencies to determine remedial measures 

(per research, studies, and planning) that could be taken to preserve the Columbia River fishery; p. 

22-23); 2) On 2 April 1947, the Assistant Secretary of Interior (Warner W. Gardner) memorandum 

was forwarded by the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Commission (FIABRC) to the Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee for study, discussion, and recommendations; 3) On 23 July 1947 at 

the 11th meeting of the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, (a) Fred Foster (US Fish & 

Wildlife Service) outlined the Lower Columbia River Fishery Program, consisting of obstruction 

removal, pollution abatement, diversion screening, fishway construction, hatchery construciton and 

fish sanctuaries - a program estimated at a cost of $20 million, and (b) a Fish & Wildlife 

subcommittee was established to coordinate and integrate fish and wildlife programs with water 

esource program; p. 25; 4) On 22 September 1947, the Fish & Wildlife Subcommittee (Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee) filed a report that summarized factual data relating to navigation, 

power, fish, irrigation, Indians, and National Defense, p. 26; 5) On 8 October 1947, at its 12 meeting, 

the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee unanimously approved and forwarded a letter to the 

Federal Inter-Agency river basin Commission (FIABRC) recommending that a) Grand Coulee power 

installations proceed, construction of Hungry Horse, Foster Creek, Detroit, and McNary Dam 

proceed, etc. b) authorized dams on the columbia River system not to be rescheduled, approval of the 

Lower Columbia River Fishery Program, and compensaiton of Treaty Indians, and c) upstream dams 

be authorized promptly and if authorized before 1958 they be constructed ahead of 

planned/unauthorized The Dalles, John Day and Arlington Dams unless the fish problem has been 

solved in the interim, etc., p. 26; 6) In 1950, the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee establishes 

the Fisheries Steering Committee, and this subcommittee prepares a comprehensive program of 

research and construction (to cost 25-50 million dollars) and proposed to finance it by a tax of fifty 

cents per kilowatt year (note proposal failed and caused an outcry from power interests) p. 27; 7) On 

17 September 1948, at its 21st meeting, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee authorized a 

Technical Subcommittee for Operating Plan to prepare an integrated and coordinated operating plan 

for the release and control of waters in connection with Columbia River development program (note 

plan was never consummated) p. 32; 8) On 10 November 1948 at its 22nd meeting of the columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee, the Corps of Engineers presented an eight volume "Review of the 
Columbia River and its Tributaries,: a report costing $5 million; p. 33; 9) On 28 June 1950 at its 40th 

meeting, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency committee approved an interim fishery research program 

(prepared by the Fish & Wildlife Subcommittee) that called for studies of fish passage at river 

obstructions, impoundment studies, artificial propagation, and studies of life history, trends and 

abundance, trout habitat and pollution, at an estimated $600,000 per year - another $500,000 was 

included for stream development and improvement; p. 46; 10) On 19 January 1955, the Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee directed the Fisheries Steering Committee to a) prepare an Upper 

Columbia River fishery program comparable to that in effect on the Lower Columbia River, b) a 

program of needed fishery research for the whole area, and c) explore ways and means of 

implementing/financing both programs; p. 83; 1) On 13 March 1957, the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee accepted the Fisheries Steering Committee report with respect to a) prepare an 

Upper Columbia River fishery program comparable to that in effect on the Lower Columbia River, 

and b) a program of needed fishery research for the whole area - established resarch priorities and 

recommendaitons as to what agency would carry out specific studies recommended; p. 91; 12) On 

13-14 November 1963, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee heard a panel of University of 

Washington academicians (James Crutchfield, W.F. Royce, D. Bevan, Robert Fletcher, R.C. Van 

Cleave, and R.W. Johnson) carry on extensive dialogues on "Fisheries in the Pacific Northwest - the 

academicians view this controversial issue," Don Bevan was very critical of fishery regulation; p. 

114; 13) On 14 December 1965 at the 132 meeting of the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, 

the Executive Subcommittee presented its recommendations on seven fishery proposals (previously 

submitted by the Fisheries Steering Committee on 6 October 1965) summarized as follows: Proposal 

1 - Greater Committee representation for salmon and steelhead, Proposal 2 - Reduction of the use of 

the Columbia River water for nuclear production to reduce heat pollution of the river, Proposal 3 -

Establishment of working contract with Canada on Fishery problem, Proposal 4 - Development of 

small watersheds for power production should be discontinued, Proposal 5 - Assure proper attention 

to fish requirements in any inter-basin water transfer studies, Proposal 6 - Fishery research should be 

continued, the Proposal 7 - The Columbia River Fishery Development program should be retained; 

14) On 29 September 1966 at its second Columbia-North Pacific study review, the Columbia Basin 

Inter-Agency Committee accepted the report of the Water Supply and Pollution Subcommittee 

entitled "Columbia River - Water Temperature Conditions and Research Requirements" report 

stemmed from one of the seven fishery proposals (previously submitted by the Fisheries Steering 

committee on 6 October 1965; p. 21); (15) On 9 June 1967, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency 

committee held its last meeting, and handed over its responsiblities, function and records to the new 

River Basins Commission, p. 122.

Seaman, Margaret H. 1977. Columbia River estuary inventory of physical, biological and cultural 

characteristics. Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, 

Abstract: Author provides a document containing a compilation of work contributions by various 

experts for the Columbia river basin, with respect to physical characteristics (e.g. climate, freshwater, 

estuarine tides, etc.); biological characteristics (e.g. tidal marshes, shoreline habitat, plankton, fishes, 

etc.); and cultural characteristics (e.g. land & water uses, recreation, etc.).

Shippen, H. 1954. Columbia River survey, ecological section. (Final report to the US Fish Wildl. Serv.). 

contract 14-19-008-2220. 178 p. p.

Abstract: Author provides a listing of fish species reported in the Columbia river drainage, based on 

various published and unpublished references; associates fish species with reference sources 

contained in listing of abstracts/annotations. These references within the abstracts/annotations section 

of this report contain information regarding species description, distribution, habitat, food habits, 

reproduction, and predation. Some but limited information for fishes species inhabiting the estuarine 

zones of the Columbia rive. Note: Excellent Source For Old References Regarding the Fish 

Species and Habitat (including anadromous salmonids) within the Columbia River Basin.
Simenstad, C. A., Jay, D., McIntire, C. D., Nehlsen, W., Sherwood, C., and Small, L. 1984 . The 

dynamics of the Columbia River estuarine ecosystem, Vol. I and II. Columbia River Estuary Data 

Development Program, Astoria, Oregon. 695 p. p.

Abstract: Authors present a synthesis of ecological information & data, derived the physical and 

biological studies carried out in the Columbia river estuary by CREDDP.The general sections of this 

reference are:

1. Regional setting and previous studies;

2. Circulatory processes;

3. Sedimentary geology;

4. Historical changes in Columbia river estuarine physical processes;

5. Conceptual framework for physical-biological integration;

6. Ecosystem processes; and

7. Ecosystem analyses by regions and habitat types.

Simenstad, C. A., Jay, D. A., and Sherwood, C. R. 1992. Impacts of watershed management on landmargin ecosystems: the Columbia River estuary. 266-306. Watershed Management: balancing 

sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 543 p.

Abstract: Authors describe the pattern of land use development, changes in estuarine 

dynamics/process, and habitat alterations of the Columbia river estuary, with respect to river flow, 

physical properties, and discharge of sediments. State a reduction in 1) mean river flow by ~20%, 2) 

spring freshet discharge by ~50% of natural flow, 3) sediment inflow by ~25%, and 4) tidal prism by 

~15% since the 19 th century. Modifications of the estuary have had significant effects on the 

estuarine processes that occur in the estuarine turbidity maximum (ETM). Subject of headings of 

reference are: 1) Watershed impacts on land-margin ecosystems, 2) Land margin ecosystems of 

illustrative of watershed impacts, 3) River characteristics and the influence of watershed alterations, 

4) River flow dynamics, 5) Water characteristics and constituents, 6) Historic alterations to the 

Columbia river from the watershed to the land margin (includes subsections specifying/describing 

alterations to (a) watershed, (b) river flow frequency spectrum, & (c) sediment transport), 7) Effects 

of modifications to watershed on land-margin ecosystem processes (ETM, estuarine heat budget, 

organic input and food web, consumer populations & ecology). Reference contains excellent 

descriptive tables and figures that illustrate estuarine alterations, historical trends of specific 

physical/hydrologic factors in the estuary, and historical trends in anadromous salmon landings in the 

Columbia river.

Simenstad, C. A., Small, L. F., McIntire, C. D., Jay, D. A., and Sherwood, C. 1990. Columbia River 

estuary studies: An introduction to the estuary, a brief history, and prior studies. Prog. Ocean. 25: 

1-13.

Abstract: Authors provide a short synopsis on: 1) a description of the Columbia river estuary, 2) 

previous investigations and the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program (CREDDP), and 

Definitions and Conventions in CREDDP. Figures illustrate the various regions & zones and 

bathymetry of the Columbia estuary. A table illustrates and quantifies the area of habitat types within 

each region of the Columbia estuary. Extensive reference list included.

Smith, C. 1979. Salmon fishers of the Columbia. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 

Abstract: Author describes a history of the Columbia River fishing industry, from the early Indian 

fishing activities through the modern day, using numerous reference sources. Provides fish landing 

and pack statistics over this period. Discusses the habitat alterations/ losses, due to water 

development, and artificial propagation activites in the Columbia River. Also discusses management 

history of the Columbia River, and regulatory actions of the States of Oregon and Washington since 

the late 1800s.
Stanley, G. F. 1970. Mapping the frontier - Charles Wilson's diary of the survey of the 49th parallel, 

1858-1862, while secretary of the British Boundary Commission. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle, 182 pages. 

Abstract: Charles William Wilson, a British Army officer, documents his travels, activities during his 

assignment in the survey and mapping of the region around the British Columbia and US boundary. 

Lieutenant Wilson provides excellent notes and observations of fisheries resources, Indian fishing,

and habitat in the upper Columbia basin (e.g. Columbia, Okanogan, Ketttle, Pend d'Oreille rivers 

basins); ;and also documents fisheries/habitat in the Fraser River basin and Skagit River basin. 

(NOTE: an excellent reference to fish stocks and habitat that have not been documented in other 

references/publications related to the Columbia River fisheries resources). The following historical 

notes of historical milestones and fisheries/natural resources information were derived: 1) Mentions 

the survey (late 1850s) of the DD.G.F. Macdonald (civil engineer) in the region between the 

Chilliwack Lake and the Skagit river; p. 13; 2) An illustration of a map of the area (Chilliwack, 

Skagit, Pasayten, Ashnola (Rosalia), Similkameen, and Okanogan Rivers basin) surveyed in 1858-

1860, p. 34-35; 3) Indian fishing and processing for winter use noted on the Fraser River opposite 

Fort langley on 16 October 1858, p. 37; 4) Description of habitat surrounding the Chillawack River 

(tributary to the Fraser R.) at Chilukweyuk Prairie Headquarters camp on 16 June 1859; also 

mentions that salmon abound in this area; p. 49; 5) On 30 July 1859, Lt. Wilson mentions that a 

"fearful fire was raging" in the Skagit Valley beyond the Cascades that originated from an American 

camp fire, which the Americans were too lazy to put out properly; p. 65; 6) On 9 October 1859, Lt. 

wilson mentions, in respect to the Chillawack river and tributaries that "at this season of the year is 

the quantity of dead salmon on the banks of the river; in some of the smaller streams the quantities are 

so numerous that it produces a most intolerable smell and renders the water anything but pleasant for 

drinking purposes...who has been dissecting several of them, thinks this arises from the want of 

insects to feed enormous numbers of salmon that run up the rivers." p. 73; 7) On 22 May 1860, Lt. 

Wilson describes Indian fishing activities at The Dalles (Celilo Falls) and notes that the fish "average 

25 to 40 lbs. weight..." p. 95; 8) An illustration (map) of the region survey in the upper Columbia 

River basin (e.g. Kettle, Colville, Spokane, Pend d'Oreille Rivers) in 1860-1861; p. 104-5; 9) On 29 

June 1860, lt. Wilson briefly describes the habitat of the Spokane River basin in the area between 

Willow Springs and Deep Creek; p. 108-9; 10) On 30 June 1860, Lt. Wilson briefly describes the 

habitat of the Colville River; p. 109; 11) On 2 July 1860, Lt. Wilson reported that the American 

Commission has been brought to a standstill at Pend d'Oreille Lake dur to extensive flooding..."I hear 

a tract of nearly 60 miles of land is flooded there." p. 112; 12) On 1 August 1860, Lt. Wilson 

extensively describes Indian fishing activities at Kettle Falls on the Columbia River, and notes that 

the Indians catch 700 to 1000 fish per day; p. 113-114; 13) On 12 August 1860, Lt. Wilson briefly 

describes the habitat surrounding the Okanogan River in the vicinity of Lake Osoyoos; and mentions 

the salmon fishing methods of the Indians "catching the salmon running at this time in great 

numbers...: p. 118; 14) On 26 August 1860, Lt. Wilson mentions gold miners at work on the 

Similkameen River near the forks of the Similkameen and Ashnolon (Rosalia) rivers, and notes that 

there were about 150 miners in the lower Similkameen basin; p. 124; 15) On 29 August 1860 Lt. 

Wilson briefly describes the habitat of Rock Creek (tributary to Kettle River); p. 125; 16) On 30 

August 1860, lt. Wilson briefly describes the habitat of the Kettle River (Nehoialpitku") in the 

vicinity of the town of Rock Creek and also describes the gold mining activity and methods on Rock 

Creek; p. 126-6; 17) On 31 August 1860, Lt. Wilson briefly again describes the habitat of the Kettle 

River ("Nehoialpitku"); p. 128; 18) On 2 September 1860, Lt. Wilson notes that "salmon are 

running in great numbers up the river (the Kettle River "Nehoialpitku"); p. 129; 19) Lt. Wilson 

describes the habitat in the Little Spokane River basin; p. 146. General description of attributes in the 

vicinity of the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. General description of attributes in the 

vicinity of the Palouse river mouth.

Stone, L. 1885. Explorations on the Columbia River from the head of the Clarks Fork to the Pacific 
Ocean, made in the summer 1883, with reference to the selection of suitable place for establishing a 

salmon breeding station. US Bureau of Fisheries Report, 1883 (1885), p. 237-258. Doc. 97 issued 

1886; F11-241. US Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Derived reference from Appendix V: An analytical subject bibliography of the publications 

of the Bureau of Fisheries, 1871-1920, by Rose M.E. MacDonald. Document review: Author 

generally describes his investigation of the various Columbia tributaries in terms as potential fish 

hatchery sites; provides some habitat characteristics of the tributaries.

Sutton, Sarah. 1854. Diary of Sarah Sutton 1, 69-86 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author provides some detailed descriptions of activities, habitat and surroundings of various 

sub-basins (e.g. Burnt, Powder, and Grande Ronde) during her journey to Oregon; diary abruptly ends 

since the author died at an unknown place in transit of the Grande Ronde valley.

Symons, Thomas W. 1882. Report of an examination of the upper Columbia River and the territory in its

vicinity in September and October 1881. 47th congress, 1st Session, Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 186, 

Washington; Government Printing Office, 1882. 1-135, maps (complete) p.

Abstract: Author presents a comprehensive account of observations (geologic, botanical, 

hydraulic/topographic characteristics) and surveys of the upper Columbia River and its tributaries 

(e.g. Pend d'Oreille, Kootenay, Colville, Spokane, San Poil, Methow River, etc.) Note: Excellent 

reference to derive habitat information and inferences of the upper Columbia River.

Thomas, D. W. 1983. Changes in the Columbia River estuary habitat types over the past century. 

Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Astoria, Oregon. 51 p. (complete) p.

Abstract: The author provides and compares information for habitat of the Columbia river from the 

period predating most human interventions (circa 1870) to the present day (1980). Qualitative and 

quantitative changes in various estuarine habitat are described and illustrated (figures & tables) 

according to:

 (1) Area- river mouth, mixing zone,Youngs Bay, Baker Bay, Grays Bay, Cathlamet Bay, Upper 

Estuary, and Estuary;

(2) Habitat type- deep water, medium depth, shallows/ flats, tidal marshes, tidal swamps, developed 

floodplain, uplands (natural & filled), non-estuarine swamp, and non-estuarine water;

(3) Acreage by period- 1870 and present;

(4) Change- acreage (plus or minus) and percentage;

(5) 1870 acreage, Present estuarine acreage, estuarine area removed, and non-estuarine wetlands 

added.

Includes appendices providing information regarding:

(1) Excerpts from Annual Reports of Superintendent of the US Coast Survey concerning the 

Columbia river survey for 1868-1873;

(2) Verification of the US Coast Survey charts;

(3) An explanation of the boundaries of the historical subarea map;

(4) Subarea reports for the River Mouth, Mixing Zone, Youngs Bay, Baker Bay, Grays Bay, 

Cathlamet Bay, and Upper Estuary;

(5) The nineteen intertidal vegetation communities of the Columbia river, with tables showing their 

present acreage per subarea and their former acreage and importance (Thomas, 1980).

Note : Excellent reference.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Draft environmental statement of Lower 

Monumental lock and dam, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, 

Washington. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Lower Monumental dam 

project. Includes information that describes the Lower Monumental project and the existing 
environment (terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the 

impacts of proposed project alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Draft environmental statement of Lower Granite 

project, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Lower Granite dam 

project. Includes information that describes the Lower Granite project and the existing environment 

(terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of 

proposed project alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Draft environmental statement of lower Snake river 

fish and wildlife compensation U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 1, I-4, 46-

47, 70-106, maps p.

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses proposed actions to compensate fish 

and wildlife losses resulting from four multi-purpose water resources development projects on the 

lower Snake river. Includes information that describes the existing environment (terrestrial and water 

habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of proposed project 

alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Final environmental statement of Ice Harbor lock 

and dam, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 1,11, 

2(1)-2(19), 2(33)-2(36) p.

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Ice Harbor dam project. 

Includes information that describes the Ice Harbor project and the existing environment (terrestrial 

and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of proposed project 

alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Commerce. 1994. (Draft 

environmental statement.). Lower Snake river biological drawdown test. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses a proposed biological drawdown test 

to be conducted a Lower Granite Reservoir, possibly as early as 1995. Include information describing 

the Lower Granite project and the existing environment (terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the 

area of the project.

US Army. 1897. Report of the chief of engineers 1897 in six parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1897. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3456-

3463 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 502-503, Part 4, p. 3404-3406;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 503, Part 4, p. 3407-3414;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 504, Part 4, p. 

3414-3416.

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 520, Part 4, p. 3463-3465;

(5) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 466, Part 5, p.3595-3596 (removal of snags and 
overhanging trees);

(6) Clatskanie river, from mouth to town of Clatskanie -Part 1, p. 467, Part 4, p. 3596-3598;

(7) Lewis river (survey)-Part 1, p. 523, Part 4, p. 3469-3478; and

(8) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 468, Part 4, p. 3406-3407.

General description of attributes for the Snake river in the vicinity of Wild Goose Island (~74 miles 

above the Snake river mouth)- human alterations. General description of attributes for the Snake river 

in the vicinity of Log Island (~38 miles below Lewiston, ID)- human alterations.

US Army. 1898. Report of the chief of engineers 1898 in six parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1898. (Annual report). Government Printing Office, Washington. 3014-

3025 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 507-508, Part 4, p. 3040;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 505-506, Part 4, p. 3031-3038;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 499, Part 4, p. 

3414-3416.

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 508-509, Part 4, p. 3041-3042;

(5) Willamette Slough (Scappoose Creek/ Bay)- Part 4, p. 3043-3044;

(6) Clatskanie river, from mouth to town of Clatskanie -Part 1, p. 510, Part 4, p. 3049-3050; and

(7) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 507, Part 4, p. 3039.

Detailed description of attributes for the Snake river from mouth to Riparia - derived from House 

Document No. 411, Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session: Survey of the Snake River, Washington, 

From Its Mouth to Riparia (with maps in four sheets). General description of attributes for the Snake 

river in the vicinity of Wild Goose Island (~74 miles above the Snake river mouth)- human alteration. 

General description of attributes for the Snake river in the vicinity of Log Island (~38 miles below 

Lewiston, ID)- human alterations.

US Army. 1899. Report of the chief of engineers 1899 in six parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1899. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 595 Part 4, p. 3246-3247 (includes bathymetry map, dated 

June 1899, of mouth);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 592-593, Part 4, p. 3239-3245;;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 586-588, Part 

4, p. 3229-3231 (includes map of Hayden Slough characteristics & 6 pages of photographs);

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 597-598, Part 4, p. 3249-3250;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 596-597, Part 4, p. 3248-3249;
(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 595-596, Part 4, p. 3247-3248; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 594, Part 4, p. 3245-3246.

US Army. 1900. Report of the chief of engineers 1900 in nine parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1900. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 4338-

4343 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 671-672 & p. 676,-Part 6, p. 4361-4362 & p. 4434-4455 

(includes bathymetry map, dated June 1900, of mouth);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 669-670 & p. 676, Part 6, p. 4352-

4360 & p. 4416-4433 (includes bar above Tongue Pt, Dobelbower Bar, Walker Is. Bar, Martin Is., 

Hunters Bar, Martin Is.-Upper Bar, & Pillar Rock Bar);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 661-663, Part 

6, p. 4334-4337 (includes map of Hayden Slough characteristics;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 674-675, Part 6, p. 4366-4367;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 673-674, Part 6, p. 4364-4365;

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 672-673, Part 6, p. 4363-4364; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 670-671, Part 6, p. 4360-4361.

General description of attributes for the Snake river in the vicinity of Wild Goose Island (~74 miles 

above the Snake river mouth)- human alteration. General description of attributes for the Snake river 

in the vicinity of Log Island (~38 miles below Lewiston, ID)- human alterations. General description 

of attributes for Steptoe Rapids, located ~20 miles below Lewiston, ID. Detailed description of 

attributes for the Snake R. from Asotin to Wolf Cr. vicinity- derived from House Document No. 75, 

Fifty-Sixth Congress, 1st Session: Preliminary examination of Snake River from Asotin, WA to 

Pittsburg, OR (photos and maps included).

US Army. 1901. Report of the chief of engineers 1901 in five parts plus supplement. Annual Reports, 

War Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1901. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3528-3544 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 635-637,-Part 5, p. 3567-3570;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 633-634, Part 5, p. 3557-3565;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 627-628, Part 

5, p. 3499-3501;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 639-640, Part 5, p. 3573-3575;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 638-639, Part 5, p. 3572-3573;
(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 637-638, Part 5, p. 3571-3572; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 634-635, Part 5, p. 3565-3567.

Detailed description of attributes for the Snake river from the mouth to Lewiston, ID. Vicinityderived from House Document No. 127, Fifty-Sixth Congress, 2nd Session: Preliminary examination 

of Snake River from Lewiston, ID to Riparia, WA.

US Army. 1902. Report of the chief of engineers 1902 in four parts plus supplement. Annual Reports, 

War Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1902. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities rela ted 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 556-558,-Part 3, p. 2400-2402;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 554-555, Part 3, p. 2393--2398;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 549-550, Part 

3, p. 2383-2384;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 559-560, Part 3, p. 2404-2405;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 560-561, Part 3, p. 2406-2407;

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 558-559, Part 3, p. 2403-2404; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 556-558, Part 3, p. 2398-2400.

US Army. 1903. Report of the chief of engineers 1903-Volume 9, Part 1, Volume 10, Part 2, Volume 11, 

Part 3, Volume 12, Part 4, & Volume 13, Supplement.. Annual Reports, War Department, Fiscal Year 

Ended June 30, 1903. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 2246-2255, 2270-

2319 and maps p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 614-616,-Part 3, p. 2271-2318 (includes a comprehensive 

synopsis for the Columbia river entrance, with respect to description, history, physical data, sand 

movements, projects such as jetties, dredging, etc, and appendices with historical surveys & 

bathymetric maps);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 612-614, Part 3, p. 2263-2270 

(includes an index map of the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, opposite p. 2266);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 608-609, Part 

3, p. 2228-2229;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 616-618, Part 3, p. 2319;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 618-619, Part 3, p. 2320-2321 (includes index map of Lewis river);

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 616-617, Part 3, p. 2318; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 614, Part 3, p. 2398-2400.
Note: Excellent reference that provides the history of the Columbia entrance from late 1700's to 

present.

Detailed description of attributes for the Snake R. from Lewiston (ID) to Imnaha river mouth- 14 

maps included. Detailed description of attributes for the Snake R. from Lewiston (ID) to Imnaha river 

mouth- 13 maps to scale of 1:5000 with an index sheet and profile of the river (not printed in report?)

US Army. 1904. Report of the chief of engineers 1904- Volume 5, Part 1, Volume 6, Part 2, Volume 7, 

Part 3, Volume 8, Part 4, & Volume 9, Supplement. Annual Reports, War Department, Fiscal Year 

Ended June 30, 1904. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington . 3468-3471, maps 

p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 678-681,-Part 3, p. 3543-3553 (includes a bathymetric map of 

the Columbia river entrance for June 1904, opposite p. 3548);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 675--677, Part 3, p. 3534-3542 

(includes an index map of the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, opposite p. 3538);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 670-671, Part 

3, p. 3496-3506;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 682-683, Part 3, p. 3555-3557;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 683-685, Part 3, p. 3557-3558 (includes index map of Lewis river);

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 681-682, Part 3, p. 3554-3555; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 678, Part 3, p. 3543.

US Army. 1905. Report of the chief of engineers 1905- Volume 5, Part 1, Volume 6, Part 2, Volume 7, 

Part 3, Volume 8, Supplement.. Annual Reports, War Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1905. 

(Annual report). Government Printing Office, Washington. 2454-2469, 2482-2495 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activitie s related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 685-687,-Part 3, p. 2484-2492 (includes a bathymetric map of 

the Columbia river entrance for June 1905, opposite p. 2488);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 681-684, Part 3, p. 2475-2483 

(includes an index map of the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, opposite p. 2478);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 676-678, Part 

3, p. 2467-2468;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 688-689, Part 3, p. 2493-2494;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 689-691, Part 3, p. 2495-2496;

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 687-688, Part 3, p. 2492-2493; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 684, Part 3, p. 2483-2484.
US Army. 1906. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1906 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1906. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington . 1984-1999, 2004-2019, 2044-2047 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 757-760,-Part 2, p. 2012-2017-(includes a bathymetric map of 

the Columbia river entrance for May-June 1906, opposite p. 2016);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 754-756, Part 2, p. 2006-2012 -

(includes an index map of the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, opposite p. 2010);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 750-751, Part 

2, p. 1998-2000;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 761-763, Part 2, p. 2018-2019;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 763-765, Part 2, p. 2019; and

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 760-761, Part 2, p. 2017-2018.

Detailed description of the attributes for the Snake R. from Imnaha river mouth to Wolf creek vicinity 

(Pittsburg, OR)- seven map sheets not included. Detailed description of the attributes for the Snake R. 

from Imnaha river mouth to Wolf creek vicinity (Pittsburg, OR)- index map of upper Columbia and 

Snake rivers from Ceilo to Pittsburg Landing.

US Army. 1907. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1907 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1907. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 2168-2179, 2188-2205, 2226-2227 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Columbia river- mouth to mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 767-768;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p.771-772;

3) Mouth of Columbia river- Part 1, p. 773-774, Part 3, p. 2196-2203;

5) Dredge for improving lower Willamette and Columbia rivers- Part 2, p. 1105-1106, Part 3, p. 

2190-2196;

6) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 775-776, Part 3, p. 2203-2204;

7) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 777-778, Part 3, p. 2204-2207;

8) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 776-777, Part 3, p. 2204-2207; and

9) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 779, Part 3, p. 2207.

US Army. 1908. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1908 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 
Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1908. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 2244-2257, 2264-2279, 2305-2307 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce &

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p.820-822, Part 3, p.2264-2270;

2) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 822-825, Part 3, p. 2270-2274 (Note : opposite page 2272 

is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the year 1908);

3) Dredge for improving lower Willamette and Columbia rivers- Part 1, p. 1143-1144;

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 825-826, Part 3, p. 2274-2275;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 827-829, Part 3, p. 2277-2278;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 826-8277, Part 3, p. 2275-2277; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 829-830, Part 3, p. 

2278-2279.

US Army. 1909. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1909 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1909. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 2210-2217, 2222-2223, 2230-2238, 2240-2243, 2260-2263 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 859-982, Part 3, p. 2230-2236;

2) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.862-864, Part 3, p. 2236-2239;

3) Dredge for improving lower Willamette and Columbia rivers- Part 1, p.1153 (Note : opposite page 

2238 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the year 1909);

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 865-866, Part 3, p. 2239-2240;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 867-869, Part 3, p. 2241-2242;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 866-867, Part 3, p. 2240-2241; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 869-870, Part 3, p. 

2242-2243.

US Army. 1913. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1913 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1913. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3068-3085, 3092-3095, 3100-3105,3108-3115, 3140-3143 p.
Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Oregon Slough (part of the former channel of the Columbia river which separates Hayden Island 

from the Oregon mainland)- Part 1, p. 1338-1340 (Note: Includes table of references to examination 

or survey reports or maps not in the project documents for years 1892, 1896, 1904, & 1912), Part 3, p. 

3083-3084;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 13501354 (Note: Includes table 

of references to examination or survey reports or maps including the project documents for years 

1877, 1891, 1892, & 1900), Part 3, p. 3092-3100;

3) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1354-1359, Part 3, p. 3100-3108 (Note : opposite page 

3104 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the year 1913);

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1359-1361 & p. 1367-1368 (Note: Snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 3108-

3109 & p. 3115 (Note: Snag removal projects);

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1364-1367 & p. 1367-1368 (Note: Snag removal 

projects), Part 3, p. 3113-3114 & p. 3115 (Note: Snag removal projects);

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1362-1364 & p. 1367-1368 (Note: Snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 3110-3112 & p. 3115 

(Note: Snag removal projects); and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1368-1369, Part 3, p. 

3115-3116.

US Army. 1914. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1914 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1914. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3197-3215, 3222-3245, 3266-3267 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Oregon Slough (part of the former channel of the Columbia river which separates Hayden Island 

from the Oregon mainland)- Part 1, p.1387-1389 (Note: Includes table of references to examination 

or survey reports or maps not in the project documents for years 1892, 1896, 1904, & 1912), 

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 1400-1403 (Note: Includes table 

of references to examination or survey reports or maps including the project documents for years 

1877, 1891, 1892, & 1900),

3) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1403-1409 (Note: Includes (1) Table of references to 

examination or survey reports or maps including the project documents for years 1879, 1880, 1883, 

1886,1890, 1893, 1895,1900 & 1903, and (2) Information on the amount of stone used for the 1884 

and 1903 jetty projects);
4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1409-1411 & p. 1417-1418 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 

3, p. 3239-3240 & p. 3245 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1414-1417 & p. 1417-1418 (Note: Dredge & snag 

removal projects), Part 3, p. 3243-3444 & p. 3455 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1411-1414 & p. 1417-1418 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 3240-3243 

& p. 3455 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects); and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1418-1419, Part 3, p. 

3245-3246.

US Army. 1915. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1915 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1915. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3370-3375, 3388-3389, 3396-3419, 3442-3443 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) The Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and the mouth of the Willamette river- Part 1, p. 

1513-115;

2) Oregon Slough (part of the former channel of the Columbia river which separates Hayden Island 

from the Oregon mainland)- Part 1, p. 1515-1518, Part 3, p. 3389-3390;

3) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 1527-1532, Part 2, p. 1998-1999, 

Part 3, p. 3397-3404;

4) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1533-1538, Part 2, p. 1999-2000, Part 3, p. 3404-3414 

(Note : opposite page 3408 are survey maps of Columbia river entrance for the September and 

December 1914, and March and June 1915);

5) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1538-1540 & p. 1546-1547 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 

2, p. 2000, Part 3, p. 3414-3415 & p. 3418-3419 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

6) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1543-1546 & p. 1546-1547 (Note: Dredge & snag 

removal projects), Part 2, 2001, Part 3, p. 3417--3418 & p. 3418-3419 (Note: Dredge & snag removal 

projects);

7) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1540-1542 & p. 1546-1547 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 2, p. 2000, Part 3, 

p. 3415-3417 & p. 3418-3419 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects); and

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1547-1549, Part 3, p. 

3245-3246.

US Army. 1916. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1916 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1916. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3207-3219, 3226-3227, 3232-3245, 3270-3273 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 
to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributarie s thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 1649-1655, Part 3, p.3227-3233;

2) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1655-1658, Part 3, p. 3233-3238 (Note : opposite page 

3408 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the June 1916).

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Walla ce Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1658-1661 & p. 1668 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 

3239-3240 & p. 3244-3245 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1663-1667 & p. 1668 (Note: Dredge & snag 

removal projects), Part 3, p. 3242--3244 & p. 3244-3245 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1661-1663 & p. 1668 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 3240-3242 & p. 

3244-3245 (Note : Dredge & snag removal projects); and

6) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1668-1670, Part 3, p. 

3245-3246.

US Army. 1917. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1917 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1917. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3322-3323, 3328-3335, 3344-3349, 3376-3377 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1716-1719, Part 2, p. 3329-3333;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1719-1726, Part 

2, p. 3333-3340;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1726-1729, Part 2, p. 3340-3342;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1735-1739, Part 2, p. 3345--3347;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1739-1741, Part 2, p. 3347-3349; and

6) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1742-1744, Part 2, p. 

3349-3350.

US Army. 1918. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1918 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1918. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3370-3371, 3377-3385, 3394-3397 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 
to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1763-1766, Part 3, p. 3377-3380 (Note : opposite page 

3378 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the June 1918).;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p.1766-1772, Part 3, 

p. 3381-3388;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1773-1775, Part 3, p. 3389-3390;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1782-1786, Part 3, p. 3394--3395;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1786-1789, Part 3, p. 3395-3397; and

6) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1789-1791, Part 3, p. 

3397-3398.

US Army. 1919. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1919 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1919. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington . 3424-3441 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1857-1861, Part 3, p. 3433-3437 (Note : opposite page 

3434 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the June 1919).;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p.1861-1867, Part 3, 

p. 3437-3445.

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1867-1870, Part 3, p.3445-3446 ;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1877-1880, Part 2, p. 3450-3451;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1881-1883, Part 3, p. 3452-3453;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1883-

1885, Part 3, p. 3453-3454; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1885-1888, Part 3, p. 

3454-3455.

US Army. 1920. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 2926-2945 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 
Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1851-1854, Part 2, p. 2935-2937 (Note : opposite page 2936 

is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the June 1920);

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1854-1861, Part 

2, p. 2937-2940;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1861-1863, Part 2, p.2941 ;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1870-1873, Part 2, p. 2943-2944;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1874-1876, Part 2, p. 2944;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1876-

1878, Part 2, p. 2945; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1878-1881, Part 2, p. 

2945.

US Army. 1921. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1921 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1921. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington . 1850-1877, 1886-1895, 1944-1947 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1867-1870 (Note : opposite page 1868 is survey map of 

Columbia river entrance for the June 1921);

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1870-1877;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1877-1880;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1886-1889;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1889-1892;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1892-

1894; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1894-1897.

US Army. 1922. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1922 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1922. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington . 1868-1899, 1909-1921, 1964-1967 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 
of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1887-1889;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1890-1897;

3) Willamette Slough (also known as Multnomah Channel- 21 miles in length, flowing in northerly 

direction, connecting the Willamette and Columbia rivers at St. Helens, OR)- Part 1, p. 1897-1899 

(Note: a new project in the fiscal year 1922);

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1900-1902;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1909-1912;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1912-1914;

7) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1915-

1916; and

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1916-1919.

US Army. 1923. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1923 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1923. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1743-11746;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1746-1754;

3) Willamette Slough (also known as Multnomah Channel- 21 miles in length, flowing in northerly 

direction, connecting the Willamette and Columbia rivers at St. Helens, OR)- Part 1, p. 1754-1756;

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1756-1759;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1764-1767;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1767-1769;

7) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1769-

1771; and

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1772-1774.

US Army. 1924. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1924 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1924. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 
Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1748-1751;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1751-1759;

3) Willamette Slough (also known as Multnomah Channel- 21 miles in length, flowing in northerly 

direction, connecting the Willamette and Columbia rivers at St. Helens, OR)- Part 1, p. 1760-1762;

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1762-1764;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1769-1772;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1772-1774;

7) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1775-

1776; and

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1777-1779.

US Army. 1925. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1925 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1925. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1676-1679;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1679-1686;

3) Willamette Slough (also known as Multnomah Channel- 21 miles in length, flowing in northerly 

direction, connecting the Willamette and Columbia rivers at St. Helens, OR)- Part 1, p. 1686-1688;

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1688-1691;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1699-1701;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1702-1704;

7) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1704-

1705;

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1706-1707; and 

9) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1708-1709.

US Army. 1926. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1926 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1926. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding proje cts and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 
river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1665-1668;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1668-1677;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1677-1680;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1688-1691;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1691-1694;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1694-

1696;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1696-1698; and

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1698-1701.

US Army. 1927. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1927 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1927. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1664-1667;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1667-1675;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1675-1678;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1700-1702;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1702-1705;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1705-

1707;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1707-1709; and

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1709-1711.

US Army. 1928. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1928 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1928. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 
etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1725-1728;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1728-1736;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1736-1739;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1761-1763;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1764-1766;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1766-

1768;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1769-1770; and

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1771-1773.

US Army. 1929. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1929 in two parts. nnual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1929. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1753-1756;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1756-1764;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1764-1767;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1790-1793;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1793-1796;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1796-

1798;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1798-1800; and

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1800-1802.

US Army. 1930. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1930 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1930. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1844-1847;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1849-1856;
3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1856-1859;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1886-1889;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1889-1892;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1893-

1895;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1895-1897;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1897-1900;

9) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, p. 1847-1849 (Note : reference provides a short history of the 

stream & condition);

10) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1885-1886 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided); and

11) Steamboat Slough (also known as Skamokama Slough)- Part 1, p. 1892-1893.

US Army. 1931. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1931 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1931. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1854-1857;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1861-1869;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1869-1872;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1899-1901;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1901-1905;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1906-

1910;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1895-1897;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1911-1913;

9) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, p. 1857-1860 (Note : reference provides a short history of the 

stream & condition);

10) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1896-1899 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided); and

11) Steamboat Slough (also known as Skamokama Slough)- Part 1, p. 1905-1906.

US Army. 1932. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1932 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1932. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 
to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie , Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1756-1760;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1762-1771;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1771-1773;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1794-1796;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1796-1799;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1800-

1802;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1802-1803;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1803-1805;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1792-1794 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided); and

10) Steamboat Slough (also known as Skamokama Slough)- Part 1, p. 1799-1800.

US Army. 1933. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1933 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1933. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1140-1143;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 11145-1150;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1150-1152;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1164-1165;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1166-1168;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1168-

1169;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1802-1803;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1169-1170; and

9) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, p. 1143-1145 (Note : reference provides a short history of the 

stream & condition).
US Army. 1934. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1934 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1934. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1313-1316;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1318-1325;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1325-1326;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1343-1344;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1344-1347;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1347-

1348;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1348-1350;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1350-1351;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1341-1343 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1351-1352;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1334-1337; and

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, - Part 1, p. 1316-1318 (Note : reference provides a short history of 

the stream & condition).

US Army. 1935. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1935 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1935. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1475-1477;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1479-1487;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1487-1488;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1499-1501;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1501-1503;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1503-

1504;
7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1504-1505;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1505-1507;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1498-1499 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1507-1508;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1513-1516;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, - Part 1, p. 1477-1478 (Note : reference provides a short history of 

the stream & condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1478-1479; and

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1489-1490.

US Army. 1936. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1936 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1936. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1476-1478;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1481-1487;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1487-1489;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1500-1502;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1502-1504;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1504-

1505;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1505-1506;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1506-1507;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1499-1500 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1507-1508;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1517-1524;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, - Part 1, p. 1479-1480 (Note : reference provides a short history of 

the stream & condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1480;

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1489-1490; and

15) Oregon Slough (also known as North Portland Harbor)-Part 1, p. 1498-1499.

US Army. 1937. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1937 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1937. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 
of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1487-1489;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1492-1498;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1499-1500;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1509-1510;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1510-1512;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1513-

1514;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1514-1515;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1515-1516;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1508-1509 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1516-1517;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1529-1536;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)-Part 1, p. 1489-1491 (Note : reference provides a short history of the stream 

& condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1491-1492;

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1500-1501;

15) Oregon Slough (also known as North Portland Harbor)-Part 1, p. 1498-1499;

16) Westport Slough (side channel of the Columbia river located 70 mi. below Portland, OR)-Part 1, 

p. 1498-1499;

17) Elockomin Slough (3.5 mi. in length, located 75 mi. below Portland)-Part 1, p. 1512-1513; and

18) Columbia river between Vancouver and Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1528-1529.

US Army. 1938. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1938 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1938. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1740-1742;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1746-1750;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1751-1753;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1762-1763;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-
Part 1, p. 1763-1765;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1766-

1767;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1767-1768;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1768-1769;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1761-1762 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1769-1770;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1829-1838;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)-Part 1, p. 1742-1744 (Note : reference provides a short history of the stream 

& condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1745-1746;

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1753-1754;

15) Oregon Slough (also known as North Portland Harbor)-Part 1, p. 1498-1499;

16) Westport Slough (side channel of the Columbia river located 70 mi. below Portland, OR)-Part 1, 

p. 1751;

17) Elockomin Slough (3.5 mi. in length, located 75 mi. below Portland)-Part 1, p. 1765-1766;

18) Columbia river between Vancouver and Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1828-1829;

19) Columbia river between Chinook, WA and head of Sand Island-Part 1, p. 1770-1771; and

20) Information regarding diking & Improving Districts along lower Columbia -Part 1, p. 1774-1808.

US Army. 1939. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1939 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1890-1893;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1897-1903;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1903-1904;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1914-1915;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1915-1917;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1918-

1919;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1919-1920;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1920-1922;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1913-1914 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1922-1923;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 2002-2011;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 
stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)-Part 1, p. 1893-1895 (Note : reference provides a short history of the stream 

& condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1895-1897;

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1904-1905;

15) Oregon Slough (also known as North Portland Harbor)-Part 1, p. 1498-1499;

16) Westport Slough (side channel of the Columbia river located 70 mi. below Portland, OR)-Part 1, 

p. 1751;

17) Elockomin Slough (3.5 mi. in length, located 75 mi. below Portland)-Part 1, p. 1917-1918;

18) Columbia river between Vancouver and Bonneville -Part 1, p. 2000-2002;

19) Columbia river between Chinook, WA and head of Sand Island-Part 1, p. 1923-1924; and

20) Information regarding diking & Improving Districts along lower Columbia -Part 1, p. 1927-1973.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Columbia river downstream of Bonneville dam- maintenance 

disposal plan. US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, 79 p.

Abstract: Reference provides information regarding shoal/bar patterns of the entrance and estuary of 

the Columbia river to Bonneville dam, with respect to current and future dredging operations (and 

disposal areas of materials) for maintenance of the navigation channel. Information (past 

maintenance, present Oregon side disposal, and present Washington side disposal) for each critical 

bar/reach is provided; each is illustrated using an aerial photograph that is detailed with data & 

outlines.

Note : Photographs provide excellent details of inriver, riparian and uplands habitat from an aerial 

perspective.

US Commission of Fish and Fisheries. 1895. Bulletin of the US Fish Commission for 1894, Vol. XIV. 

US Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, DC: Government printing office, 1894. 

Abstract: Eigenmann, Carl H. Results of explorations in western Canada and the northwestern US 

(pages 101-132): References to habitat of Umatilla River, Grande Ronde, Snake River (at Idaho 

Falls); and a milling dam on the Grande Ronde at the town of La Grande. Discussion of species and 

taxonomic characteristics. NOTE: VERY IMPORTANT REFERENCE. Gilbert, C.H. and B.W. 

Evermann. A report upon the physical and natural history investigations in the Columbia River basin 

(pages 169-207): Extensive discussions of habitat characteristics for tributaries of the Lower 

Columbia (Cowlitz, Yakima, Naches, adn Toutle) and the upper Columbia (Colville, Little Spokane, 

Spokane, Snake and tributaries. References that large numbers of salmon used to ascend the Yakima 

River and Columbia River at Kettle Falls; also has stream temperature and flow data for hte Yakima, 

Naches, and Manatash Creek. NOTE: VERY IMPORTANT REFERENCE. McDonald, Marshall. 

The salmon Fisheries of the Columbia River, together with a report upon the physical and natural 

history investigations in the region, by Gilbert and Evermann (Pages 153-207): a presentation of the 

status of salmon and reasons for decline of salmon in the Columbia basin, that was given to the 

Congress. NOTE: VERY IMPORTANT REFERENCE.

US Commission of Fish and Fisheries. 1895. Part XIX: Report of the Commissioner for 1893. US 

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, DC: Government printing office. 38-41 p.

Abstract: Discussion of the investigations of interior waters of the Columbia River (Clarke Fort, Pend 

d'Oreille Lake, and Pend d' Oreille River) in terms of habitat, physical impediments to 

passage/navigation. Reference to occurrence of chinook salmon and steelhead trout in the Pend 

d'Oreille River. Commissioner stated intentions to expand investigations of habitat/passage of salmon 

throughout the entire Columbia River and its tributaries. Pages 38-41. Discussion of the operation of

the Clackamas station Oregon (Waldo F. Hubbard, superintendent) during 1892; references to adult 

and egg collection of chinook salmon at the Sandy River. Pages 121-122. Extensive section that 

elaborates on The Fisheries of The Pacific Coast (text and statistical tables), inclusive of the 

Columbia River. Pages 143-304.
US Department of Commerce. 1932. Doctor Ellis demonstrates serious effects of mine pollution. 

Fisheries Service Bulletin No. 211, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Washington

DC, December 1, 1932. 

Abstract: Notes the history and results of Dr. M.M. Ellis (US Bureau of Fisheries) who studied the 

pollution problem of Couer d'Alene River in Idaho, regarding wastes from silver, lead, and zinc 

mines. Survey extended from Montana to Spokane River in Washington. Provids extensive 

information on extent and type of habitat degradation to streams and lakes caused from mining 

wastes. Mentions that aquatic production of Couer d'Alene Lake was showing decline in the southern 

end from 1911, and species of trout were scarce, p. 3-4.

US House of Representatives. 1881. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1881 in three parts. 47th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. 

Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river- Part 3, p. 2534-2552 (includes historical description of river mouth for 

physical characteristics and projects since early 1839, and bathymetry maps December 1880 and 

February 1881 opposite p.2546 & 2552 respectively);

(2) Lower Willamette and Columbia rivers from Portland to the sea-Part 1, p. 324-326, Part 3, p. 

2531-2534 (surveys & dredging activities);

(3) Cowlitz River-Part 1, p.331, Part 3, p. 2600-2603 (includes brief historical description of river 

characteristics and commerce in the valley adja cent to the river); and

(4) Young's, Lewis & Clark, and Skipanon rivers, tributaries to Young's Bay-Part 1, p.332.

US House of Representatives. 1887. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1887 in four parts. 50th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. 

Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river- Part 1, p. 327, Part 3, p. 2470 etc. (not available at U of W library for 

review);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 331, Part 3, p. 2507 etc. (not 

available at U of W library for review); and

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 333, Part 3, p. 2524 etc. (not available at U of W library for review).

US House of Representatives. 1891. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1891 in six parts. 52D Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3284-3293 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 
to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 412-413 (channel maintenance and work on low-tide jetty 

from Fort Stevens to Clatsop Spit), Part 5, p. 3314-3328 (includes bathymetry map of Columbia 

mouth for June 1891);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 416-417, Part 5, p. 3362-3367;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 418-419

(4) Willamette river at Swan Island-Part 1, p. 420, Part 5, p.3370-3371;

(5) Young's Bay (improvement of Young's and Klasskuine rivers) at Columbia river mouth-Part 1, p. 

420, Part 5, p.3371-3372 (removal of snags and overhanging trees);

(6) Deep, Skamakawa, and Crooked rivers-Part 1, p. 420

(7) Lower Columbia river between Astoria and Woods Landing (snag removal project)-Part 1, p. 420, 

Part 5, p.3380;

(8) Lewis and Clarke's river (snag & overhanging trees removal project)-Part 1, p. 421, Part 5, 

p.3384-3385;

(9) Grays river (sand bar, snag & overhanging trees removal project)-Part 1, p. 421, Part 5, p.3386-

3387; and

(10) Deep, Skamakawa, and Crooked rivers-Part 5, p. 3378-3379.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the mouth to Lewiston, ID, Table containing 

gradient information for various rapids.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth).

US House of Representatives. 1892. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1892 in four parts and atlas. 52D Congress, 2d Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. 

(Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 2374-2485, 2400-2409, 2708-2715 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activitie s of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 386-388 (channel maintenance and work on low-tide jetty 

from Fort Stevens to Clatsop Spit), Part 3, p. 2808-2818;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 389-391, Part 3, p. 2829-2835;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 392-393, Part 3, p. 2837-2838;

(4) Young's Bay (improvement of Young's and Klasskuine rivers) at Columbia river mouth-Part 1, p. 

393, Part 3, p.2839 (removal of snags and overhanging trees);

(5) Lower Willamette and Columbia rivers, with view of securing 25 feet a low water from Portland 

to the mouth of the Columbia -Part 1, p. 394-395, Part 3, p. 2851-2869; and

(6) Willamette river at Ross Island-Part 3, p.2842-2844.

Atlas: Map no. 126- Depth sounding of the Columbia river mouth, 9,10, 11 June 1892; Map no. 127-

Showing jetty construction at Columbia river mouth

General description of attributes for the Snake river reaches from Riparia to Lewiston, ID.
US House of Representatives. 1893. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1893 in six parts. 53D Congress, 2d Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3374-3377 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 447-449 (channel maintenance and work on low-tide jetty 

from Fort Stevens to Clatsop Spit), Part 4, p. 3488-3503 (includes bathymetry map of mouth, June 

1893 opposite of p. 3496);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 452-455, Part 4, p. 3515-3522;;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 456, Part 4, p. 3526-3527;

(4) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 456-457, Part 4, p.3527-3528 (removal of snags and 

overhanging trees);

(5) Lewis river from mouth to Speliah creek-Part 1, p. 458, Part 4, p. 3533-3536; and

(6) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 449-450, Part 

4, p. 3503-3506.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth).

US House of Representatives. 1894. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1894 in six parts. 53D Congress, 3d Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 2588-2593 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 413-414 (channel maintenance and work on low-tide jetty 

from Fort Stevens to Clatsop Spit), Part 4, p. 2631-2642 (includes bathymetry map of mouth, June 

1894 opposite of p. 2640);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 416-417, Part 4, p. 2654-2659;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 417-418, Part 4, p. 2662-2663;

(4) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 418, Part 4, p.2663 (removal of snags and overhanging 

trees); and

(5) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 414-415, Part 

4, p. 2643-2645.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth). - brief note on original 

condition of this reach.

US House of Representatives. 1895. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1895 in seven parts. 54th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report). Government Printing Office, Washington. 3388-3393 p.
Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 460-461, Part 5, p. 3551-3561 (includes bathymetry map of 

mouth, October-November 1894 opposite of p. 3560);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 461-462, Part 5, p. 3561-3566;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 466, Part 5, p. 3594-3595;

(4) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 466, Part 5, p.3595-3596 (removal of snags and 

overhanging trees);

(5) Clatskanie river, from mouth to town of Clatskanie -Part 1, p. 467, Part 5, p. 3596-3598 

(description of existing conditions prior to project improvements);

(6) Lewis river from La Center to its mouth-Part 1, p. 467, Part 5, p. 3600-3601;

(7) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 468, Part 5, p. 3605-3606 

(includes bathymetry map of south channel, Tongue Pt to Smith Point,dated November 1894 opposite 

p. 3608); and

(8) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 462-463, Part 

5, p. 3566-3568.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth). - brief note on original 

condition of this reach.

US House of Representatives. 1896. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1896 in six parts. 54th Congress, 2d Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3382-3389 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 400-401, Part 5, p. 3250-3256 (includes bathymetry map of 

mouth, October-November 1894 opposite of p. 3560);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 401-422, Part 5, p. 3257-3262;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 415, Part 5, p. 3385-3386;

(4) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 405, Part 5, p.3283; and

(5) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 401, Part 5, p. 3256-3257;

(6) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 402-403, Part 

5, p. 3263-3266.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth). - brief note on original 

condition of this reach.
Victor, E. 1935. some effects of cultivation upon stream history and upon the topography of the Palouse 

region. Northwest Science IX(3): 18-19 (September, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses habitat alterations (bank erosion, channel scouring, etc.) along stream 

courses in the Palouse region, due to human activities and environmental dynamics; mentions Miller 

Creek (near Walla Walla), Touchet (near Waitsburg) and Palouse rivers as examples of channel 

changes.

Ward, H. B. 1939. The migration and conservation of salmon. Publication of the American Association 

of Advanced Sciences 8: 60-71.

Abstract: Author discusses habitat influences on behavior of salmonid fishes; emphasizes that habitats 

are not static, and that it is important to understand environmental factors that modify behaviors. 

Makes continous references to efects of temperature on behavior patterns and outcomes. (Pertinent to 

life history strategies paper.)

Washington Department of Fisheries. 1938. Report of the preliminary investigations into the possible 

methods of preserving the Columbia River salmon and steelhead at the Grand Coulee Dam. Report 

prepared for the US Bureau of Reclamation by the State of Washington Department of Fisheries, in 

cooperation with the Department of Game and the US Bureau of Fisheries. 121 pp. 

Abstract: Comprehensive report of investigative findings regarding fish counts, biology, behavior, 

habitat of salmon stocks in the tributaries of the Columbia River above Rock Island to Grand Coulee. 

Includes trap counts of upstream and downstream migrants at Rock Island and tributaries; some 

biometric data of these trapped fish are presented (Wenatchee, Methow, Twisp, etc.) Some 

environmenta l data such as water temperature and water flow are given for some tributaries. Briefly 

describes water development projects (irrigation) and their associated fish protection facilities. 

Excellent document for deriving historical background information regarding the planning of fish 

salvage and mitigation measures associated with the Grand Coulee project.

Washington State. 1907. 16th and 17th annual reports of the state fish commissioner and game warden: 

1905-1906. State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game, Seattle, Washington. C.W. 

Corham, Public Printer, 1907. 

Abstract: The commissioner (John L. Riseland) discusses the situation of fishing, fishing seasons, and 

disjointed regulations of Oregon and Washington in the lower Columbia River; expresses concern 

that if the early season is not shortened, the Royal chinook will further decline and lead to situation 

where packers will have to depend on fall season rather than early and mid seasons. Provides 

newspaper quotes from the Portland Oregonian that support his statements. pages 10-14. Provides a 

report on Washington salmon hatcheries in the Columbia basin; notes that the Wenatchee Hatchery is 

the only hatchery tributary to the Columbia that propagates Silverside salmon (coho). Also mentions 

that manager of the Colville Hatchery could only acquire 90,000 silverside salmon eggs in the stream 

(Colville River); and that the facility was deemed not to operate. Notes that the Klickitat hatchery 

was never completed, and was abandoned in 1902, pages 24-25. Notes that the Wind River Logging 

company, on the Wind River, flooded the Wind River, carrying all their logs into the Columbia River; 

this citation documents the use of crib dams to contain logs and flush logs down the Wind River, page 

30. Notes that the Methow hatchery is the only remaining salmon hatchery (Colville, Little Spokane 

and Klickitat hatcheries are closed) on the east side of the Cascades to propagate silverside salmon; 

infers that Colville, Little Spokane and Klickitat Rivers have or had runs of coho salmon, pages 30-

131. Provides letters that note run and habitat conditons on the Klicktat, Colville, Wenatchee, and 

Lewis Rivers, Page 39-42.

Wilkes, Charles. 1856. Narrative of the United States expedition. During the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 

1841, 1842. By Charles Wilkes, USN. Commander of the expedition, member of the american 

philosphical society, etc. In five volumes, with thirteen maps. Vol IV. G.P. Putnam & Co., 321 
Broadway, New York. 1-4 (notes on work) p.

Abstract: Author provides an account of his experiences and observations during his travels in the 

Columbia river basin; notes habitat/landscapes, fauna, flora of various reach sections of the Columbia 

river and tributaries.

Wissmar, R. C., J.E. Smith, B.A. McIntosh, H.W. Li, G.H. Reaves, and J.R. Sedell. 1994. A history of 

resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon and Washington (early 1800s1900s). Northwest Science 68, Special Issue: 1-35.

Abstract: Authors provide a historical review of human activities (mining, livestock, irigation, and 

logging) and habitat alterations in the Okanogan, Methow, Little Naches, Grande Ronde, and John 

Day basins) Table 1 presents a chronology of major settlement, human activities, and natural 

resources development in these basins.

Wood, Tallmadge R. 1903. Letters of Tallmadge R. Wood. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical 

Society VI(1): 80-85 (March 1903).

Abstract: Author notes in letter of 19 February 1846 (Clatsop, Co. Oregon Territory) that: 1) six 

sawmills and five flour mills are now in operation (the Clatsop county region), p.81; 2) heavy timber 

and broken land along each side of the river (Columbia River from Astoria to the mouth of the 

Cowlitz River),p. 82; Provides general description of the habitat/vegetation/soil along the banks of 

the Columbia River in the Clatsop County area.

HARVEST

Reference List

Gaumer, Tom, Demory, Darrell, and Osis, Laimons. 1973. 1971 Columbia River Estuarine estuary 

resource use study. Fish Commission of Oregon, Division of Management and Research, Portland, 

Oregon. 

 Abstract: Authors provide information regarding fish species (invertebrate and vertebrate) harvested 

and observed in the recreation harvest from the seaward end of the south jetty upstream to the area 

adjacent to Jetty Sands parking lot, from 1 March through 31 October 1971. Figures and tables 

temporally and spatially illustrate the species and catch statistics for this harvest.

Griffin, L. E. 1935. Certainties and risks affecting fisheries connected with damming the Columbia 

River. Northwest Science IX(1): 25-30 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses 1) the economic importance of anadromous and resident fish species, and 

the effects on dam construction on said species; 2) the importance and distribution of salmon harvest 

in the Columbia basin; 3) the certainties associated with current state of technology of fish passage 

systems, and risks associated with designs and plans to be incorporated at the Bonneville project; 4) 

recommended actions to reduce risks associated with current fish passage technology; 5) certainties 

and risks associated with sedimentation and submergence of fish habitat (sloughs and shallows) in the 

Bonneville impoundment; 6) the certainties and risks of power plants to migration of young salmon; 

and 7) turbine designs and devices to reduce the risks associated with hydropower operaton. Author 

alludes to a hypothesis that the Columbia impoundments (e.g. Bonneville) may present risks to the 

importance of the sloughs and shallow ponds contiguous to the river, as being very important as a 

food source to young salmon during their downstream migration.

Oregon State. 1896. 3rd and 4th Annual Reports of the State Fish and Game Protector of the State of 

Oregon 1895-1896. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. W.H. Leeds, State Printer, 1896. 10,53 p.

Abstract: The Protector (Hollister D. McGuire) discusses failure of the last legislature to enact laws 

for more effectual regulation and protection related to such topics as concurrent regulations with the 

state of Washington, protection of salmon through construction of fishways, and harvest limitations 
on the columbia River, page 5. Mentions that oregon ahs an 1878 statute on the books requiring 

fishway construction at barriers to salmon, but his predecessors showed no willingness to enforce the 

statute. He lists the fishways that have been put in under his direction. pages 8-9. He discusses Indian 

fishing (Warm Spring Indians) and the earliest date of chinook salmon spawning in vicinity of the 

upper Clackamas River at its junction with a warm spring where thousands of salmon naturally 

spawn; this date is July 20th. page 10. Notes that a dam and operation of fishing in the lower 

Clackamas River (four miles below the hatchery) prevent salmon from ascending to the hatchery 

racks in 1893 and 1894; mentions that dam was removed last spring 1895. page 31. Mentions that 

$10,000 was appropriated by the 1893 Oregon legislature for work to construct a fishway on the 

Willamette River at the falls at Oregon City, and notes that fishway work is completed bu not 

adequate (except during high water stage) for the March and April migration of chinook at Oregon 

City falls, and that another $4000 is necessary to effect this passage. pages 50-52. Recommends that 

a provision in the law should mandate that fish screeens constructed at mill races, irrigation ditches, 

or canals, taking or receiving water from any river, creek, stream or lake having food fish; his 

attention to the need for such law was derived from a letter of Dr. C.H. Gilbert (Stanfor University) 

who noted that water diverters on the Wallowa River killed thousands of young chinook and bludback 

salmon by diversion of them into irrigated fields. page 53. Notes that an Oregon law of 1893 and 

reenacted in 1895 created the office of the Fish & Game Protector. page 83.

Oregon State. 1907. Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon for year 1907 

to the legislative assembly, twenty-fourth regular session (1907). State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. 

W.S. Duniway, State Printer, 1907. 78-79 p.

Abstract: The Master Fish Warden (H.G. Van Dusen) states that "in view of the fear that the salmon 

of the Columbia River was not being rehabilitated through the medium of the system of artificial 

propagation, I am very pleased to be able to chronicle...that there has been a considerable increase in 

salmon produced by the Columbia River this year over last year..." This increase was for Chinook and 

steelhead in both Washington and Oregon. He mentions that chinook and steelhead over past five 

years, but decreases in silversides and bluebacks; and says that artificial propgation has been of 

assistance in the increase of chinook and steelhead. Page 7. Notes that hatcheries select to use large 

and strong fish (males) for egg fertilization, and do not use small males; attributes this selective 

practice to maintaining the 25 lb. average weight of chinook ovr the past seasons. Page 8. Notes that 

egg collection at facilities in Snake and Wallowa Rivers was very unsatisfactory, even though the fish 

racks were operated early, few fish go upstream this far, and those that did were three males to one 

female. But the eggtake at federal and state hatcheries (Oregon and Washington) below Celilo Falls 

the eggtake was good. page 13. Notes an inspection of the Santiam River (Willamette tributary) in 

regards to sites for artificial propagation activities. pages 17-18. Mentions that the first contract for 

the construction of the fishway over the falls of the Willamette River at Oregon City was completed 

and accepted by the state engineer on November 29, 1904. Mentions that as the Willamette Pulp and 

Paper Company completed a concrete dam at the falls, this dam caused water hydraulic problems in 

the fishway (upper pools) - the gradient of the upper portion of the fishway was too steep. This 

situation caused problems for the spring chinook migration over the falls. Surveys were conducted to 

make recommendations and provide cost estimates to remedy the fishway problem. Pages 20-24. 

Notes that hatchery station was established and operated on the McKenzie River at a site situated a 

couple of miles below Gates Creek; mentions that they took spawn of the early variety of chinook 

from August 15 to October 15th. States that liberated approximately 1.5 million fry of this 1905 

brood year into the McKenzie River in the immediate vicinity of the station during the months of 

January and February 1906. Pages 75-76. Notes that Wallowa Hatchery station did not secure any 

sockeye salmon spawn during the 1905 BY - (note: appears that this BY cycle is extinct or some 

lower river blockage prevented sockeye from upper area). page 78. Notes that by leaving racks of the 

Wallowa Hatchery in the river late, they discover a late run of silversides that passed the racks in the 

month of November, but were unable to hold them to spawning due to severe cold weather 
conditions. page 78. Notes that the Ontario hatchery station (Snake River at Swan Falls) left their 

rack in river late (until November 23rd) in hopes of collecting late running silversides, but none 

appeared. Page 84. Mentions the 1901 law passed by the Oregon State legislature that prohibited 

fishing above tide water and established fishing deadlines on all coast streams. page 129. Notes that 

fishway for the falls of the Willamette River at Oregon City provides excellent passage for early 

chinook in 1906, Page 132. Mentions request for two special deputy fish wardens to enfore laws 

regarding water diversions and dam obstructions that are causing mortality of young migrants going 

to sea; notes causes due to extensive development of power/mill dams across streams and irrigation 

projects that are taking water for irrigation puroses. Pages 134-135. Notes the needs for laws that 

assure better escapement to the spawning ground in the Columbia River; infers that hatcheries alone 

will not solve the problem of diminishing harvest to fishermen in the Columbia River. page 137. 

Notes that 1906 BY salmon returns (chinook and sockeye) in northeastern Oregon (Wallowa and 

Ontario Hatcheries) were poor; and that salmon runs in the lower Columbia River below Celilo Falls 

appeared to have been successful in running the gauntlet of net fishermen in the lower Columbia, 

Page 139. Mentions that he must secure eggs in order to assure shortage of Snake River stock (at 

Ontario Hatchery) four to five years hence, based on "...theory that Salmon return to the stream of 

their nativity to spawn..." Page 140.

Oregon State. 1951. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and 

forty-sixth legislative assembly, 1951. Fish Commission of the State of Oregon; Salem, Oregon, 

State Printing Office, 1951. 

Abstract: Notes that (1) Fish commission has particular interest in the study of logging effects on

salmon production, page 3. (2) On June 1948, the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and 

Federal Government (Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of Interior) consummated agreement of 

the provision of funds for the rehabilitation of the lower tributaries of the Columbia River, under the 

Lower Columbia River Salmon Rehabilitation Program, page 10. (3) A fishway is installed at a 

diversion dam (owned by the Vancouver Plywood Company) on Rock, a tributary of the North 

Santiam River, this reopened considerable area for steelhead spawning. page 12. (4) A new concrete 

fishway is constructed at the Powerdale Dam (owned by Pacific Power and Light Company) on the 

Hood River, page 13. (5) A fish screening and by-pass system is completed in the Marmot Dam 

Canal (Marmot Dam project, owned by Portland General Electric Company) on the Sandy River, 

page 13. (6) Columbia River investigations are studying five different problems; (a) extension of 

reduction in productivity of the Columbia River Basin by the encroachment of man, (b) harvest 

practices, stock timing/migration/distribution; (c) knowledge of growth and survival and limiting 

factors of young salmon in freshwater, (d) effect contemplated water development projects on 

Columbia River salmon, and (e) studies on sturgeon. page 15. (7) A need for the development of 

cheap and nutritional diets alternative to the liver based diets. page 18.

Pollock, C. R. 1930. Fishery conditions in the state of Washington: Puget Sound appears healthy, but 

Columbia River shows decline. Pacific Fisherman Annual Statistical Number, Vol. 28, No. 2, 

January 25, 1930, pages 110-111. Seattle, Washington. 

Abstract: Supervisor of Fisheries states that there was a shortage of escapement in the Columbia 

River district. Mentions that there is little hope of increasing spring chinook run until adequate 

screening installations have been completed on irrigation ditches. Says that summer and fall chinook 

runs must be looked to as the source of harvest for the fishing industry in the Columbia River district. 

Also provides a report on hatchery operations in the Columbia River district during 1929.

Washington State. 1921. 30th and 31st annual reports of the state fish commissioner to the governor of 

the state of Washington: April 1, 1919 to March 31, 1921. State of Washington Department of 

Fisheries and Game, Olympia, Washington. Frank M. Lamborn, Public Printer, 1921. 

Abstract: The commissioner (L.H. Darwin) discusses: 1) the actions and impacts of the 1921 
legislative action to create the State Fish Commission, with respect to Washington fisheries resource 

management, in the context of state and international (Canada) benefits (p. 8-10); 2) discusses 

"Wastefulness of Natural production," in the context of justifying increased harvest rates through use 

of efficient fish artificial propagation. NOTE: this reference may be the premise for Washington state 

fisheries policy over the next 60 years (p. 18-19); 3) Notes negotiations with Northwestern Electric 

Company to provide mitigation monies for construction of a new hatchery at Chinook, WA 

(replacement of the old Chinook Salmon Hatchery) in lieu of upgrading and operating the existing 

fishway over their hydroelectric dam on the Big White Salmon River. Mentions that dam is 160 ft. in 

height, and that adult steelhead trout are the only species that transcend this dam upstream (p. 24); 4) 

extensive discussion of the Indian fishing privileges at Prosser Dam, and the fate of salmon resources 

in the Yakima River, based on the prognosis of irrigation/water developments in the Yakima basin -

states that within the next 10 years salmon will not exist in the Yakima (p. 27-29).

HATCHERIES

Reference List

Attwell, J. 1974. Columbia River gorge history, Volume One. Fourth Printing, Talkie Books, 34 

Landing Road, Skamania, WA 98648, p. 151. 

Abstract: A history of the Columbia River in its early days is provided with respect to early 

inhabitants (Indians, explorers, white settlers), industry/commerce activities. References regarding 

fisheries and habitat characteristics of this area in this era are lacking in this reference. The following 

notes are related to milestones/events; 1) 1825 Fort Vancouver was the first settlement in what is 

now the state of Washington; p. 41; 2) 1837 John McLoughlin had farms at Fort Vancouver on the 

Cowlitz River; p. 45; 3) In 1846, Joel Palmer established the Columbia River Pack Trail, down the 

south side of the river from The Dalles to the Sandy River, for cattle; p. 50; 4) In 1851, Frances A. 

Chenowith established the Cascades Portage Railroad, the first railroad in the northwest, at the 

Cascades to portage cargo around the rapids on the Columbia River.

Bayha, Keith. 1974. Anatomy of a river Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, 1 Columbia 

River, P.O. Box 908, Vancouver, Washington 98660, Vancouver, Washington. 

Abstract: Authors present a comprehensive evaluation of water requirements for the Hell's Canyon 

reach of the Snake river, based on field surveys of March 1973. Surveys included collection of 

information regarding the time of travel of the stage wave and water mass, water quality, biological 

resources, etc. Includes photographs that illustrate the habitat (terrestrial and water) of this area.

Blanchard, R. E. 1977. Columbia River estuary physical alterations. Columbia River estuary, inventory 

of physical, biological and cultural characteristics 209-1 to-209-22.Columbia River Estuary 

Taskforce, Astoria, Oregon. 

Abstract: The author discusses the man-induced physical alterations river bed, and adjacent 

riparian/upland areas of the Columbia river estuary, caused by following projects/activities (1) 

dredging & disposal for improvement and maintenance of river navigation (2) dikes & levees for 

flood control/protection, and (3) jetties/pile dikes for protection the river mouth entrance. Description 

of project histories, types, methods, and locations are discussed and supporting illustrations (tables 

and figures) are presented. Land disposal of dredging spoils are given with respect site, location 

(approximate river mile), habitat type, wildlife affected, and area size (in acres).

Note : Excellent reference for generally determining the location of projects by typed and general 

impacts.

Bottom, D. and Jones, K. K. 1990. Species composition, distribution, and invertebrate prey of fish 

assemblages in the Columbia River estuary. Prog. Oceanogr. 25: 243-270 .
Abstract: Authors note that seasonality of abundance and species in an estuary reflect the timing of 

migration and the reproductive cycles of marine and anadromous species. Composition of the fish 

community and dominant species in the Columbia river estuary are similar to many smaller estuaries 

in the Pacific Northwest; these similarities reflect the influence of the nearshore marine environment 

on the fish community structure, and considerable physiological tolerance of many euryhaline 

species. The distribution of fish assemblages in the Columbia river estuary is influenced by large 

seasonal variation in river discharge and salinity; and within large areas and salinity zones, species 

assemblages use different habitat and prey. The distribution of abundance and the stomach fullness of 

fishes vary directly with the density of potential prey; it is hypothesized that fish production may be 

limited by dynamic physical processes that control prey availability or the feeding efficiencies of 

predators in the highly turbid water.

Bryant, F. G. 1949. A survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries with special reference to the 

management of its fishery resources. 2. Washington streams from the mouth of the Columbia River to 

and including the Klickitat River (Area I). Special Scientific Report No. 62, US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of Interior, Washington DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of tributaries at period in time, in 

terms of habitat and water flow/temperature. 103 pages.

Bryant, F. G. and Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries 4. Area III 

Washington streams from the Klickitat and Snake Rivers to Grand Coulee Dam, with notes on the 

Columbia and its tributaries above Grand Coulee Dam. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 37, 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of Columbia tributaries (within 

Washington State), above the Klickitat River (excluding the Snake River) at period in time, in terms 

of habitat and water flow/temperature.

Burner, C. J. 1951. Characteristics of spawning nests of Columbia River salmon. Fisheries Bulletin 

52(61): 97-110.US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Author describes spawning habitat and characteristics of chinook (spring, summer, fall) 

coho, chum, and sockeye, based on observations in Columbia tributaries (lower and upper).

Cobb, J. N. 1922. Protecting migrating Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

52: 146-153.

 Abstract: Author gives extensive information on the Yakima Basin regarding habitat, fish, and water 

development projects (Kennewick, Wapato, Sunnyside, Prosser) Provides general design and adult 

fish behavior (steelhead) at Sunnyside, Kennewick, and Prosser.

Columbia Basin Interagency Committee. 1957. Columbia River basin fishery program, part II: Inventory 

of streams and proposed improvements for the development of the fisheries resources. Fishery 

Steering Committee, Columbia Basin Interagency Committee, January 1957; 100 pages. 

Abstract: Provide a comprehensive inventory and listing of proposed improvements of 

habitat/rehabilitation projects and considerations for major tributaries of the Columbia basin above 

McNary Dam. Notes basin descriptions for each tributary, in terms of flow, temperature (air and 

water). Includes maps of tributary/basins showing geographical orientation of streams and proposed 

improvements.

Craig, J. A. 1935. The effects of power and irrigation projects on the migratory fish of the Columbia 

River. Northwest Science IX(1): 19-24 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses the effects of human land and water uses (logging, mining, power, and 

irrigation) on fisheries resources in the Columbia basin. Provides examples of habitat alterations 
imposed by these human uses. Briefly discusses life history and ecology of all anadromous salmonid 

species inhabiting the Columbia River basin. Discusses how the use of streams for power and 

irrigation purposes affect migratory salmon species: 1) obstacles that obstruct or delay migration of 

adult upstream to natal steams; and 2) injurious or delay impediments to downstream juvenile 

migration. Presents fishways and screening as mechanisms to protect fish, and the use of artificial 

propagation in the case of high dams.

Davison, M. A. and Spencer, R. D. 1979. Columbia river islands land status survey, Columbian WhiteTailed Deer Study. Project E-I, Study 2, Job 4, Section 4. Washington Department of Game, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Abstract: Author provides information regarding the status of habitat and ownership for 28 islands, 

located within 107 mile section of the lower Columbia river between Bonneville Dam and Cathlamet, 

Washington. Provides information for each island, with respect to geographic location/acreage, 

ownership (deed abstract), floral communities/habitat, historical, present, future uses of island. 

Includes information regarding alterations in terms of dredging, fill, and forest removal, etc. Note: 

Excellent Reference

Downing, Alfred. 1980. The region of the upper Columbia River and how I saw it Ye Galleon Press, 

Fairfield, Washington. 

Abstract: Author provide a general accounting of his adventures and trip with Lt. T. Symons (U.S. 

Army) during the expedition down the upper Columbia river. No substantive information regarding 

fisheries-related habitat and stock was derived from a review of this monograph. A listing of books 

and periods was derived as a source for additional reference candidates.

Downs, J. L., Tiller, B. L., Witter, M., and Mazaika, R. 1996. Monitoring and mapping selected riparian 

habitat along the lower Snake River. PNNL-10953/UC-702: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, Washington. 

Dunn, J., Hockman, G., Howerton, J., and Tabor, J. 1984. Key mammals of the Columbia River estuary. 

Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Astoria, Oregon. 116 p. p.

Abstract: Authors provide extensive information about key mammalian species occurring the 

Columbia river estuary, with respect to 1) habitat use, 2) period of birth, 3) relationship to other 

trophic levels, and 4) critical habitat. Extensive tables and graphics are provide to illustrate spatial and 

temporal occurrence and inhabitation of key mammals within the Columbia river estuarine zone.

Franchere, Gabriel. 1969. Journal of a voyage on the north west coast of North America during the 

years 1811, 1812, 1813, and 1814 The Champlain Society, Toronto. 78,82-83, 96-97, 100-101, 110-

111, 142-143, 148-149, 152-157 p.

Abstract: Author provides an account of his observations and experiences during his travels in the 

Columbia river basin during the early 19th century. Briefly notes habitat, flora, and fauna at various 

points of travel up and down the Columbia river and its tributaries. General description of attributes 

for the Snake river mouth.

Glenn, John G. n.d. Diary of John G. Glenn, 1852 14-15 p.

Abstract: Author provides a brief description of the scenery and habitat of the Grand Ronde subbasin.

Good, James W. 1977. Columbia river tidal marshes. Columbia River estuary, inventory of physical, 

biological and cultural characteristics, Sect. 302-1 to 302-19. Columbia River Estuary Data

Development Program. 
Abstract: The author identifies, describes, and enumerates the marsh habitat and communities of the 

Columbia river estuary. Provides illustrations (figures and tables) describing the location and area of 

tidal marsh habitat; and discusses each tidal marsh area with respect to community structure and 

alterations/impacts induced by human interventions (dredging, diking, etc.).

Note : Excellent reference for deriving a perspective of the estuarine habitat and associated 

communities prior to and after human intervention.

Good, James W. and Potter, George D. 1977. Columbia river estuary shoreline habitat and wildlife 

resources. Columbia River estuary, inventory of physical, biological and cultural characteristics, 

Sect. 303-1 to 303-33. Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, 

Abstract: The authors identify, describe, and enumerate the shoreline/riparian habitat and wildlife 

communities (waterfowl, birds, big game, furbearers, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and 

marine mammals) of the Columbia river estuary. Provide illustrations (figures and tables) describing 

the kinds, location and area of various wildlife and their associated habitat that presently occur within 

the estuarine zone of the Columbia river.

 Note: Excellent reference for deriving a perspective of the estuarine habitat and associated wildlife 

communities occurring in the shoreline/riparian zone of the Columbia river estuary.

Griffin, L. E. 1935. Certainties and risks affecting fisheries connected with damming the Columbia 

River. Northwest Science IX(1): 25-30 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses 1) the economic importance of anadromous and resident fish species, and 

the effects on dam construction on said species; 2) the importance and distribution of salmon harvest 

in the Columbia basin; 3) the certainties associated with current state of technology of fish passage 

systems, and risks associated with designs and plans to be incorporated at the Bonneville project; 4) 

recommended actions to reduce risks associated with current fish passage technology; 5) certainties 

and risks associated with sedimentation and submergence of fish habitat (sloughs and shallows) in the 

Bonneville impoundment; 6) the certainties and risks of power plants to migration of young salmon; 

and 7) turbine designs and devices to reduce the risks associated with hydropower operaton. Author 

alludes to a hypothesis that the Columbia impoundments (e.g. Bonneville) may present risks to the 

importance of the sloughs and shallow ponds contiguous to the river, as being very important as a 

food source to young salmon during their downstream migration.

Harden, Absolom B. 1847. Diary of Absolom B. Harden 1, 14-30 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author provides descriptions of his activities and the habitat in various sub-basins (e.g. 

Grand Ronde) of the Snake and Columbia river.

Hardesty, W. P. 1923. Drainage project on the Columbia adjoining Portland, Ore.: levees and pumping 

plant with three types of motor-driven pumps --new sluice gate --design --assessment system. 

Engineering News-Record 90(9): 395, 398.

Abstract: Reference discusses a drainage project on the Columbia river that encompasses the use of 

levees and a pumping plant for reclamation of 8,478 acres of low land in Multnomah County 

Drainage District No. 1 (near Portland, Oregon). The project affects the habitat characteristics of 

Columbia Slough and adjacent lands. An eleven mile levee borders and is set back 50-100 ft from the 

river; a fringe of willows and cottonwoods lies between the river and levee. The enlargement of the 

slough is considered for use as a dilution vehicle for municipal sewage. Includes a map illustrating the 

Columbia Slough/project area and its orientation with the Columbia river reach adjacent to the 

Vancouver/Portland area.

Hazel, C. R. 1984. Avifauna of the Columbia River estuary. Columbia River Estuary Data Development, 

Astoria, Oregon. 85 p. p.

Abstract: Author presents and describes information regarding key avian species and their associated 
habitat, key avian habitats and their avian species composition, and food habits of key avian species 

within the Columbia river estuary. Tables and graphics are used to illustrate the spatial and temporal 

distribution of key avian species, and their associated habitats and food habits.

Hines, H. K. 1893. An illustrated history of the State of Washington. The Lewis Publishing Company, 

Chicago. 933 pages. 

Abstract: Author provides a very comprehensive history of the Washington and Oregon areas, during 

the pre-and post-Oregon Territory period (late 1770s to late 1880s); provides biographical sketches of 

principals of Washington state history. Limited notes regarding fisheries resources and habitat 

alternations are provided. NOTE: excellent reference for Washington and Oregon territorial history.

Idaho State. 1927. Eleventh biennial report of the Fish & Game Warden of the State of Idaho, 1925-

1926. R.E. Thomas, State Game Warden; Boise, Idaho. 

Abstract: (1) Photograph of the riparian zone of a section of the Selway River; near the junction with 

the Clearwater River, is illustrated on page 6. (2) The topography and status of lands of Idaho is 

generally described in terms of its habitat zones and types of development, page 7. (3) Photograph of 

the riparian zone of a section of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River is illustrated on page 18. (4) 

Photograph of the riparian zone near the junction of Camas Creek and the Middle Fork of the Salmon 

River is illustrated on page 28. (5) Description of the resident fish planting program in the Redfish 

Lake section of Idaho in 1925; this program illustrates the emphasis of the resident fishes 

management in lieu of anadromous species (e.g. Blueback salmon), page 47-48. (6) Photograph of the 

riparian zone of a section of the upper inlet to Redfish lake is illustrated on page 55. (7) Photograph 

of the Vernon and Edna Lakes area in the headwaters of the south fork of the Payette River is 

illustrated on page 58. (8) Note that a landlocked salmon, weighing slightly over six pounds was 

taken in the Salmon River a short distance below the outlet of Redfish Lake. NOTE: This fish may 

have been anadromous variety of blueback salmon? page 59. (9) Photograph of the riparian zone of a 

section (with a road along stream-side) of the Lochsa River, near Kooskia, Idaho County is illustrated 

on page 66.

Johnson, Overton and Winter, W. H. 1906. Route across the Rocky Mountains with a description of 

Oregon and California, their geographical features, their resources, soil, climate, productions, etc., 

1843. Chapters I & II. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society VII(1): 62-63, 88-103 p.

Abstract: Authors provide descriptive information regarding the habitat, geology, and flora/fauna of 

Oregon Territory between the Blue Mountains and the coast. Provides general descriptions of riparian 

habitat in terms of flora. NOTE: Excellent reference to derive habitat status/description prior to 

significant alteration due to settlement and resources development.

Johnson, Overton and Winter, W. H. 1906. Route across the Rocky Mountains with a description of 

Oregon and California, their geographical features, their resources, soil, climate, productions, etc., 

1843. Chapters III & IV. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society VII(2): 163-165, 174-179 

p.

Abstract: Authors provide descriptive information regarding the habitat, geology, and flora/fauna of 

Oregon Territory in the Willamette River valley region and the Columbia River estuarine area (p. 

175-76). Provides general descriptions of riparian habitat in terms of flora. NOTE: Excellent 

reference to derive habitat status/description prior to significant alteration due to settlement and 

resources development.

Lancaster, Samuel C. 1915. The Columbia America's great highway. Press of Kilham Stationary and 

Printing Company, Portland, Oregon. 

Abstract: Author provides a general history of the Columbia basin, in terms of the human activities 

along the Columbia river. Excellent color photographs of the various locations along the Columbia 
river, viewed from the old Columbia highway route, are presented; illustrates various morphological 

attributes, habitat structure, etc. of these locations, situated on the lower Columbia river (Cascades 

area to Astoria).

Lelbhardt, Barbara. 1990. Law, environment, and social change in the Columbia basin: the Yakima 

Indian Nation as a case study, 1840-1933. Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and 

Social Policy, University of California at Berkeley, 1990, 488 pages. 

Abstract: A. Author provides a comprehensive history and legal premise of water rights and fishing 

issues of the Yakima Indian Nation within the Yakima and Columbia rivers basin; includes an 

extensive bibliography. Documents the social and economic dependence of the Yakima Indians on 

fisheries resources; provides some insight of salmon, water, and habitat of the Yakima Basin prior to 

and during development of fisheries and agricultural industries in the Yakima basin. The following 

historical notes of historical milestones and fisheries resources information were derived: 1) In 1850, 

the US Congress passes the Land Donation Act which provided for the appropriation of lands from 

the public domain in the terriitories (e.g. Oregon Territory); p. 104; 2) In 1873, the Washington 

Territorial legislature passed an act that allowed Yakima County farmers, miners, manufacturers- or 

anyone that could use water for "beneficial purposes" to construct diversion works necessary to 

convey water onto their non-riparian lands (An Act Regulating Irrigation and Water Rights in the 

County of Yakima, Washington Territory, 13 November 1873, Washington Laws 520-522), p. 245; 

3) In 1890, the Washington State Legislature passed a statute that provided for the appropria tion of 

any unclaimed waters 'from any natural streams or lakes in the state" for irrigation and permitted the 

condemnation of rights of ways for ditches to carry water 91890 Washington laws 706, paragraph 1), 

p. 246; 4) In 1917, Washington State Legisla ture passed a law adopting an administrative water code 

that recognized prior appropriation as the only means by which an individual could acquire water 

rights (Riparian and Appropriation Rights, Washington laws 447-68), p. 247; 5) Around 1867, the 

Meninick/Shumit Ditch on Simcoe Creek (tributary to the yakima River) was constructed on the 

Yakima Indian Reservation; p. 250; 6) In 1906, the US Congress passed the Jones Act, that provided 

for funding the on-reservation portion of the US Reclamation Servic e's larger yakima irrigation 

project by allowing each Indian allottee to sell 60 acres of his or her allotment for bring water to the 

remaining twenty acres under the project; p. 254-255; 7) In 1891, the Northern Pacific, Yakima, 

Kittitas Irrigation Company, who filed on 1000 cfs of Yakima River water (in 1890) began 

construction of the Sunnyside irrigation project, and in that year built an adjustable dam (at the old 

Yakima dance house site) that was believed to have the capability to appropriate virutally the entire 

low flow when the river was at its lowest point; p. 258; 8) In 1892, the first 25 miles of the 

Sunnyside irrigation project is dedicated; p. 259; 9) In 1893, the Northern Pacific Railroad (owner of 

the Northern Pacific, Yakima, Kittitas Irrigation Company) declares bankruptcy during the Panic of 

1893; p. 259; 10) In 1894, the US Congress passed the Carey Act which allowed states to choose up 

to one million acres of arid land for irrigation development; p. 260; 11) In 1895, the Washington 

State legislature set up the Arid Lands Commission to investigate the possibility of developing lands 

between the Yakima and Columbia Rivers, above the Sunnyside irrigation project; p. 260; 12) Up to 

and through the 1890s individuals, farmers cooperatives, and ditch companies invested in their own 

small scale irrigation systems; p. 260; 13) In 1902, the US Congress passed the Newlands Act which 

created the Reclamation Service with the US Department of Interior; the Reclamation Service was 

empowered to provide planning, engineering, and financial assistance for irrigation projects; p. 261; 

14) In 1906, the US Reclamation Service purchases the Sunnyside irrigation project from the 

Northern Pacific, Yakima, Kittitas Irrigation company, p. 241; 15) In 1908, the US Supreme Court 

issued its decision on the Winters vs US, where the court held that Indians reserve water rights even 

when their treaties made no express mention of water; p. 270; 16) In 1905, the Washington irrigation 

Company, on their attorneys' advice blew up the dam of Union Gap irrigation Company at Lake Cle 

Elum when insufficient water thretened to destroy the crops on the Sunnyside Project; . p. 272; 17) 

In 1889, the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima River) was virtually drained of water by 
irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the Yakima Indian Reservation; p. 275; 18) 

In 1891, the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima River) was virtually drained of water by 

irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the Yakima Indian Reservation; . p. 275; 19) 

In 1892, (a dry summer), the US Bureau of Reclamation attempted to re divert water of Ahtaneum 

Creek, virtually drained of water by irrigators on the north side of stream where it bordered the 

Yakima Indian Reservation, but the north-side irrugation users brought suit against the Bureau's 

action; . p. 276; 20) In 1905 the US Secretary of Interior allocated 2065 cfs and 147 cfs of yakima 

River water respectively to the white water users and Yakima Indian water users; p. 292; 21) J.H. 

Lynch (in 1901) noted that the more water flowed in the Ahtaneum Creek (tributary of the Yakima 

River) in the early days than at present, and the runoff was also later, coming mostly after July 1st; he 

said " the watershed had not been burned off nor grazed excessively by sheep, hence more water". ; p. 

310; 22) In 1908, the Washington State Fish Commissioner asked the Reclamation Service to 

include fish ladders at Yakima project dams, but was told that fish ladders were not feasible, nor was 

the Reclamation Service responsible for meeting state fishery laws; p. 310-311; 23) The 

Washington State Fish commissioner (Mr. Darwin) closed the Klickitat River to food fishing (white 

commercial and Indian fishing) - not sport fishing - between 1915 and 1917, p. 373.

Mattson, C. R. 1948. Spawning ground studies of Willamette River spring chinook salmon. Oregon 

Fish Commission, Research Briefs 1(2): 21-32. 

Abstract: Provides extensive and comprehensive environment/habitat/distribution information for 

chinook salmon in the Willamette River and its tributaries.

May, Dean L. 1994. Three frontiers - family, land, and society in the American west, 1850-1900. 

Cambridge University Press, 313 pages. 

Abstract: Author provides the history of settlement and development of the Willamette Valley region 

(Oregon), the Utah Valley region (Utah), and the Boise Valley region (Idaho) from the 1840-1900. 

He documents and illustrates agrarian development in these regions (during and after the mining era); 

provides a perspective of milestones/events affecting settlement and expansion of population in these 

regions. Note: an excellent documentation of mining and agriculture development in terms of habitat 

alteration of the Boise River basin/upper Snake river region of Idaho during the 1850-1900 era. The 

following notes are related to this development in Boise and Willamette basins: 1) An excellent 

description of the habitat surrounding the Boise River is provided by early explorers/settlers such as 

John C. Fremont (1843) and Basil Nelson Longsworth (18 August 1853)p. 20-21; 2) Short 

description of the habitat in the region of the Santiam and Pudding Rivers region in the 

1840s..."largely open prairie land begins to break into rolling hills...scattered thickets of Douglas fir, 

hemlock, spruce, incense cedar in the 1840s", p. 26; 3) Short description of the habitat in the 

Middleton region of the lower Boise River in 1863..."bottoms were wooded, covered with brush, and 

often cut through with sloughs...and subirrigated by the low water table throughout the season." p. 37 

(Map of Middleton area, and rivers, p. 36).

McClung, James S. 1862. Journal to Oregon, April 22nd 1862 1, 71-80 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author provides descriptions of habitat (e.g. forest/timber) and water resources (e.g. 

springs) in various sub-basins (e.g. Powder and Grande Ronde) to the Snake and Columbia Rivers.

McIntosh, B. A., J.R. Sedell, J.E. Smith, R.C. Wissmar, S.E. Clarke, G.H. Reeves, and L.A. Brown. 

1994. Historical changes in fish habitat for select river basins of eastern Oregon and Washington. 

Northwest Science 68, Special Issue: 36-53.

Abstract: Authors compare the changes in and condition of fisheries habitat in a subset of historical 

surveyed streams (Tucannon, Asotin, Grande Ronde, yakima, Wenatchee and Methow basins) by 

comparing the US Bureau of Fisheries surveys (1934-1942) with resurveys of 1990-1992. Habitat 

information and analyses regarding pool habitat, substrate composition, and riparian zone are 
provided.

McIntosh, Bruce A. 1992. Historical changes in anadromous fish habitat in the Upper Grande Ronde 

River, Oregon, 1941-1990. Masters Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 1-88 

(complete) p.

McIntosh, Bruce A., Sedell, James R., Smith, Jeanette E., Wissmar, R. C., Clarke, S. E., Reeves, G. H., 

Brown, L. A., Hessburg, Paul F., and Everett, Richard L. Management history of eastside 

ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. General Technical Report PNWGTR-321. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station in 

cooperation with Pacific Northwest Region, 8-25 p.

Merrel, T. R. 1951. Stream improvement as conducted in Oregon on the Clatskanie River and tributaries. 

Oregon Fish Commission, Research Briefs 3(2): 41-47. 

Abstract: Provides information regarding the habitat of this river system, and associated 

recommendations for habitat improvements in tributaries/areas negatively impacted by logging 

activities 15 years previous.

Moore, Cecil R. 1939. The Willamette river project. Military Engineer 31(177): 208-211.

Abstract : Author provides a brief history, and geophysical, hydrologic, climatologic description of 

the Willamette river basin. Discusses and describes the Willamette basin plan that will includes 1) 

navigation improvement from the mouth to upstream of Willamette Falls, 2) irrigation (seven storage 

projects of 335,000 acre ft) and stream purification projects. Mentions loss and mitigation of fish 

habitat and mitigating factors for this loss in terms of improved water flows and quality. Provides 

illustrative tables for reservoir projects and project costs- pp. 208-211.

Mudd, D., Boe, L., and Bugert, R. 1980. Evaluation of wildlife habitat developed on government 

project lands along Snake river in Washington. Washingtn Department of Game, Habitat 

Management Division, 62, maps p.

Abstract: Report provides a baseline of wildlife resources and habitat in areas of the lower Snake 

river affected by the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite dam projects.

Nielson, R. S. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries, Part 5. Special Scientific Report 

Fisheries No. 38, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla 

and Walla Walla River systems at period in time, in terms of habitat and water flow/temperature.

O'Malley, H. 1935. Some problems which confront the fishery experts in the construction of dams in the 

Inland Empire. Northwest Science IX(1): 23-24 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author presents the problems of dam construction in the Columbia River as 1)successful 

passing of adults over dams, 2) getting small fish and steelhead kelts back to the sea, and 3) the 

complex problem of changed conditions brought about by the dams and artificial lakes. Mentions the 

four commissions that control the destiny of commercial and game fishes in the States of Washington 

and Oregon; the annual value and employment associated with the fishing industry; the budget and 

employment figure projected for construction of the Bonneville dam; fishways associated with the 

Rock Island dam; and the impassability of Grand Coulee dam. Discussion of the biological effects on 

native fish species, based on experiences in New England and other parts of the US; generalizes and 

predicts the ecological changes of the habitat and species resulting from water impoundments on the 

Columbia River. Briefly mentions the requirement for proper screening of power intakes and 

immediate steps to combat pollution, due to industrialization of the Inland Empire.
Oregon State. 1903. Annual Reports of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Oregon to the 

legislative assembly, Twenty-second regular session, 1903. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. W.H. 

Leeds, State Printer, 1903. 14-21, 34-37, 64-79, 116-119 p.

Abstract: The Master Fish Warden (H.G. Van Dusen) provides detailed accounts for investigations of 

various waters/streams, such as the Salmon River (tributary to the Sandy River), Clackamas River, 

the McKenzie River (tributary to the Willamette River), Gate Creek and Blue River (tributary to the 

McKenzie River), Santiam River (tributary to the Willamette River), Molalla River (tributary to the 

Willamette River), Tanner and Eagle Creek (tributary to the Columbia River near Bonneville), 

Deschutes River (tributary to the Columbia River), Crooked River (tributary to the Deschutes River), 

John Day River (tributary to the Columbia River), Grande Ronde River and its tributaries including 

Wallowa lake (tributary to the Columbia River), Imnaha River (tributary to the Snake River), Powder 

River (tributary to the Snake River), Malheur River (tributary to the Snake River), Owyhee River

(tributary to the Snake River), and Snake River. Includes notations of salmon species presence and 

timing, utilization, habitat/habitat alteration, etc. pages 10-21. Notes fish investigative/propagation 

activities at the Grande Ronde River Experimental Station at the mouth of the Wenaha River 

(tributary to Grande Ronde River at approximately RM 50); provides information on fish species 

passage to a fish rack across the Wenaha River; blueback pass this point between June 20th and July 

20th, silversides begin showing on September 14th (silverside eggtake conducted mid-October into 

early December, summary table, Page 36. Notes during investigations/field work at the Swan Falls 

Experimental Station on the Snake River, that chinook salmon began to arrive at this point on 

September 1st, and fish were spawned from October 12th to November 13th. page 37. Notes that 

Oregon State passed a law in 1899 that required the licensing of the salmon and sturgeon industry 

(fishing and processing) some of funds derived from this licensing law were to be used for artificial 

propagation of fishes. page 88. Notes on the Grande Ronde River Hatchery Station: chinook salmon 

begin arriving immediately after rakc is emplaced in the Wenaha River completed on July 4th. 

Holding rack enclosre is full by September 1st, and first eggs are taken on September 13th and 

completed October 31. First sockeye eggs were taken october 21st. Pages 116-118. Notes on the 

Ontario hatchery Station on the Snake River (lies on the left bank of the Snake River directly opposite 

Morton's Island, near Ontario Oregon); rack barrier is emplaced on August 25th, and next day 300 

chinook salmon were already in the racks; run continued at this rate per day until last of September; 

eggtake was conducted from October 13th through November 8th. pages 119-121.

Oregon State. 1947. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and 

forty-fourth legislative assembly, 1947. Fish Commission of the State of Oregon; Salem, Oregon, 

State Printing Office, 1947. 

Abstract: Notes that (1) the State of Oregon is entering a period of expansion and industrialization, 

and population increase where development of rivers will deplete fisheries resources; the early history 

of the state saw the destruction of salmon spawning habitat. (2) the policy of the Oregon Fish 

Commission is (a) to study the causes and effects of decline of varios fisheries, (b) to study methods 

of rehabilitation of species involved, and (c) to evaluate and increase efficiency of artificial 

propagation and to use hatcheries to supplant and rehabilitate, but not replace, natural spawning. (3) 

A new fishway is constructed by the Oregon Iron and Steel Company at their dam in the Tualatin 

River, tributary of the Willamette River, under the supervision of the Division of Engineering 

(Oregon Fish Commission) page 13. (4) A fishway at Eagle Creek Falls on Eagle Creek (tributary to 

the Clackamas River) is removed under the supervision of the Division of Engineering (Oregon Fish 

Commission), page 13. (6) A new dam is constructed by the Hines Lumber Company on the North 

Fork of the Willamette River, at Westfir (Oregon) construction of an adequate fishway will be 

completed by early summer 1947. page 14.

Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries, Part 6 Area V - Snake River system 

from mouth through Grande Ronde River. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 39, US Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of the Snake and Grande Ronde 

River systems at period in time, in terms of habitat and water flow/temperature.

Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries, Part 7 - Snake River from above the 

Grande Ronde River through the Payette River. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 40, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of the Snake above the Grande 

Ronde, Salmon, Weiser, and Payette Systems at period in time, in terms of habitat and water 

flow/temperature.

Parkhurst, Z. E. 1950. Survey of the Columbia and its tributaries, Part 8 Area VII - Snake River from 

above the Payette River to Upper Salmon Falls. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 57, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of the main Snake and its tributaries 

above the Payette River at period in time, in terms of habitat and water flow/temperature.

Parkhurst, Z. E., Bryant, F. G., and Nelson, R. S. 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries 

- Part III. Special Scientific Report Fisheries No. 36, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

Interior, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Provides a comprehensive description and perspective of Columbia River tributaries in 

Oregon and the Willamette system at period in time, in terms of habitat and water flow/temperature.

Porter, Elizabeth Lee. 1864. Crossing the plains, a diary by Elizabeth Lee Porter 1864 1, 6-7 

(incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author gives abbreviated diary of her activities and observations from Iowa to Oregon; 

some brief notes of climate and habitat of various sub-basins (e.g. Burnt, Powder and Grand Ronde) 

to the Snake and Columbia river.

Renshaw, Robert Harvey. 1851. Diary of Robert Harvey Renshaw 1, 24-35 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author notes his activities and habitat of various sub-basins (e.g. upper Snake tributaries, 

Burnt, Powder, and Grand Ronde)to the Snake and Columbia rivers. Gives brief mention to the 

timber and water of the Grand Ronde area.

Rich, E. E. 1950. Peter Skene Ogden's Snake country journals, 1824-25 abd 1825-26 The Hudson's Bay 

Record Society, London. 92-93, 126-135, 166-171, 190-193 p.

Abstract: Author provides an account of his observations and experiences during his travels in the 

Columbia river basin during the early 19th century. Briefly notes habitat, flora, and fauna at various 

points of travel in the various sub-basins (e.g. Bruneau, Payette, Malheur, Owyhee, etc.)of the Upper 

Snake river, and the Umatilla, John Day, Deschutes, Hood, and Willamette sub-basins of the 

Columbia river.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Payette river to the 

Burnt river (River Brule). - observation of dead salmon (carcasses) along the river. 

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of Burnt river (River Brule) 

to the Malheur River.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of Burnt river (River Brule) 

to the King Hill creek.- note of sturgeon present in this area during spring.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Payette river mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Owyhee river mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Owyhee river mouth 

to the Malheur river mouth-notes water flow (spring freshet condition).
General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity above the Owyhee river 

mouth to the Bruneau river mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Bruneau river mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity above the Owyhee river 

mouth to the Bruneau river mouth - notes seeing salmon ascending the stream.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity above the Owyhee river 

mouth to the Bruneau river mouth - notes regarding Indian fishing success/salmon presence in the 

vicinity.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity above the Bruneau river 

mouth to Alkali creek mouth.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of the Bruneau and Snake 

river confluence.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity below Big Wood river to the 

Bruneau river.

General description of attributes for the upper Snake river in the vicinity of King Hill Creek.

Scheufele, Roy W. 1970. History of the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee. Prepared under 

sponsorship of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Committee. 

Abstract: A. Author presents a comprehensive details regarding the genesis, policy & objectives, 

actions, and chronology of meeting/events for the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, during 

the period of 1946-1967. Provides information regarding governmental legislation (laws) and policy 

framework, institutional relationships with other state and federal agencies in the Columbia basin, and 

accomplishments of the agency. NOTE: Reference is very important in terms of its description of 

policy and philosophy governing water and fisheries policy in the Columbia River basin during the 

period of 1946-1967. B. Genesis of Agency and Federal Action (pages 3-9): 1) In 1902, the US 

Congress passes the Reclamation Act; 2) In 1905, the US Congress establishes the US Forest 

Service; 3) In 1920, the US Congress passes the Federal Power Act; 4) In 1925, the US Congress 

passes a statute that directed the inventory of those streams in the US where power development 

appeared feasible and practical in coombination with navigation, flood control, and irrigation; 5) In 

1927, the US Congress passes the River and Harbor Act, which commenced the survey of Pacific 

Northwest streams, that were inventoried under the 1925 congressional statute; 6) In 1936, the US 

Congress passes the Flood Control Act; 7) In 1936 (?) the US Congress establishes the US Soils 

Conservation Service; 8) In 1943, the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission, an arm of 

the National Resources Planning Board, is abolished by the US Congress; 9) In July 1943, the 

governors of the Pacific Northwest States establish the Northwest States' Development Association to 

coordinate and correlate plans of member states as they relate to unified development of all the 

resources of the Pacific Northwest; 10) In December 1943, the Northwest States' Development 

Association prepares a program and governing principles of emergency and immediate post-war 

projects for the development of the Columbia Drainage Basin; 11) In summer 1939, the US 

Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and War (Corps of Engineers) enter a tripartitie agreement to 

coordinate their work, both in Washington DC and field regions; 12) In December 1943, the US 

Federal Power Commission joins the tripartite of the US Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and 

War (Corps of Engineers), and execute a quadpartite agreement that provided monthly meetings of 

these agencies to discuss restuls of studies/investigations, to adjust differences of opinions, and to 

promote ways/means for implementing other provisions of the agreement-representatives of these 

four Departments constituted the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Commission (FIABRC); 13) In 

February 1946, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, the second field committee of Federal 

Inter-Agency River Basin Commission, is established to facilitate progress on the multipurpose 

development projects presetnly authorized by congress (p. 7-9 provides details of conditions of the 

agreement.); 14) In 1965, the US Congress passes the Water Resources Planning Act; 15) In June 
1967, the Pacific River Basins Commission takes over the functions of the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee. C. A chonicle of agency meetings and general outcomes from these meetings is 

presented (pages 10-123) 1) In March 1947, the Assistant Secretary of Interior (Warner W. 

Gardner) sends a memorandum/recommendations to the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin 

Commission (FIABRC) that propose the construction of mainstem dams on the Columbia below 

Okanogan R. and on the Snake below the Salmon R., with the exception of the proposed McNary 

Dam, be postponed until 1958 (for 10 years) provided that alternate sources of power could be 

devloped to meet Bonneville Power Administration load demands; this moratorium period would 

allow the US Fish & Wildlife Service and state fisheries agencies to determine remedial measures 

(per research, studies, and planning) that could be taken to preserve the Columbia River fishery; p. 

22-23); 2) On 2 April 1947, the Assistant Secretary of Interior (Warner W. Gardner) memorandum 

was forwarded by the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Commission (FIABRC) to the Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee for study, discussion, and recommendations; 3) On 23 July 1947 at 

the 11th meeting of the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, (a) Fred Foster (US Fish & 

Wildlife Service) outlined the Lower Columbia River Fishery Program, consisting of obstruction 

removal, pollution abatement, diversion screening, fishway construction, hatchery construciton and 

fish sanctuaries - a program estimated at a cost of $20 million, and (b) a Fish & Wildlife 

subcommittee was established to coordinate and integrate fish and wildlife programs with water 

esource program; p. 25; 4) On 22 September 1947, the Fish & Wildlife Subcommittee (Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee) filed a report that summarized factual data relating to navigation, 

power, fish, irrigation, Indians, and National Defense, p. 26; 5) On 8 October 1947, at its 12 meeting, 

the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee unanimously approved and forwarded a letter to the 

Federal Inter-Agency river basin Commission (FIABRC) recommending that a) Grand Coulee power 

installations proceed, construction of Hungry Horse, Foster Creek, Detroit, and McNary Dam 

proceed, etc. b) authorized dams on the columbia River system not to be rescheduled, approval of the 

Lower Columbia River Fishery Program, and compensaiton of Treaty Indians, and c) upstream dams 

be authorized promptly and if authorized before 1958 they be constructed ahead of 

planned/unauthorized The Dalles, John Day and Arlington Dams unless the fish problem has been 

solved in the interim, etc., p. 26; 6) In 1950, the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee establishes 

the Fisheries Steering Committee, and this subcommittee prepares a comprehensive program of 

research and construction (to cost 25-50 million dollars) and proposed to finance it by a tax of fifty 

cents per kilowatt year (note proposal failed and caused an outcry from power interests) p. 27; 7) On 

17 September 1948, at its 21st meeting, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee authorized a 

Technical Subcommittee for Operating Plan to prepare an integrated and coordinated operating plan 

for the release and control of waters in connection with Columbia River development program (note 

plan was never consummated) p. 32; 8) On 10 November 1948 at its 22nd meeting of the columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee, the Corps of Engineers presented an eight volume "Review of the 

Columbia River and its Tributaries,: a report costing $5 million; p. 33; 9) On 28 June 1950 at its 40th 

meeting, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency committee approved an interim fishery research program 

(prepared by the Fish & Wildlife Subcommittee) that called for studies of fish passage at river 

obstructions, impoundment studies, artificial propagation, and studies of life history, trends and 

abundance, trout habitat and pollution, at an estimated $600,000 per year - another $500,000 was 

included for stream development and improvement; p. 46; 10) On 19 January 1955, the Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee directed the Fisheries Steering Committee to a) prepare an Upper 

Columbia River fishery program comparable to that in effect on the Lower Columbia River, b) a 

program of needed fishery research for the whole area, and c) explore ways and means of 

implementing/financing both programs; p. 83; 1) On 13 March 1957, the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee accepted the Fisheries Steering Committee report with respect to a) prepare an 

Upper Columbia River fishery program comparable to that in effect on the Lower Columbia River, 

and b) a program of needed fishery research for the whole area - established resarch priorities and 

recommendaitons as to what agency would carry out specific studies recommended; p. 91; 12) On 
13-14 November 1963, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee heard a panel of University of 

Washington academicians (James Crutchfield, W.F. Royce, D. Bevan, Robert Fletcher, R.C. Van 

Cleave, and R.W. Johnson) carry on extensive dialogues on "Fisheries in the Pacific Northwest - the 

academicians view this controversial issue," Don Bevan was very critical of fishery regulation; p. 

114; 13) On 14 December 1965 at the 132 meeting of the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, 

the Executive Subcommittee presented its recommendations on seven fishery proposals (previously 

submitted by the Fisheries Steering Committee on 6 October 1965) summarized as follows: Proposal 

1 - Greater Committee representation for salmon and steelhead, Proposal 2 - Reduction of the use of 

the Columbia River water for nuclear production to reduce heat pollution of the river, Proposal 3 -

Establishment of working contract with Canada on Fishery problem, Proposal 4 - Development of 

small watersheds for power production should be discontinued, Proposal 5 - Assure proper attention 

to fish requirements in any inter-basin water transfer studies, Proposal 6 - Fishery research should be 

continued, the Proposal 7 - The Columbia River Fishery Development program should be retained; 

14) On 29 September 1966 at its second Columbia -North Pacific study review, the Columbia Basin 

Inter-Agency Committee accepted the report of the Water Supply and Pollution Subcommittee 

entitled "Columbia River - Water Temperature Conditions and Research Requirements" report 

stemmed from one of the seven fishery proposals (previously submitted by the Fisheries Steering 

committee on 6 October 1965; p. 21); (15) On 9 June 1967, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency 

committee held its last meeting, and handed over its responsiblities, function and records to the new 

River Basins Commission, p. 122.

Seaman, Margaret H. 1977. Columbia River estuary inventory of physical, biological and cultural 

characteristics. Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, 

Abstract: Author provides a document containing a compilation of work contributions by various 

experts for the Columbia river basin, with respect to physical characteristics (e.g. climate, freshwater, 

estuarine tides, etc.); biological characteristics (e.g. tidal marshes, shoreline habitat, plankton, fishes, 

etc.); and cultural characteristics (e.g. land & water uses, recreation, etc.).

Shippen, H. 1954. Columbia River survey, ecological section. (Final report to the US Fish Wildl. Serv.). 

contract 14-19-008-2220. 178 p. p.

Abstract: Author provides a listing of fish species reported in the Columbia river drainage, based on 

various published and unpublished references; associates fish species with reference sources 

contained in listing of abstracts/annotations. These references within the abstracts/annotations section 

of this report contain information regarding species description, distribution, habitat, food habits, 

reproduction, and predation. Some but limited information for fishes species inhabiting the estuarine 

zones of the Columbia rive. Note: Excellent Source For Old References Regarding the Fish 

Species and Habitat (including anadromous salmonids) within the Columbia River Basin.

Simenstad, C. A., Jay, D., McIntire, C. D., Nehlsen, W., Sherwood, C., and Small, L. 1984 . The 

dynamics of the Columbia River estuarine ecosystem, Vol. I and II. Columbia River Estuary Data 

Development Program, Astoria, Oregon. 695 p. p.

Abstract: Authors present a synthesis of ecological information & data, derived the physical and 

biological studies carried out in the Columbia river estuary by CREDDP.The general sections of this 

reference are:

1. Regional setting and previous studies;

2. Circulatory processes;

3. Sedimentary geology;

4. Historical changes in Columbia river estuarine physical processes;

5. Conceptual framework for physical-biological integration;

6. Ecosystem processes; and

7. Ecosystem analyses by regions and habitat types.
Simenstad, C. A., Jay, D. A., and Sherwood, C. R. 1992. Impacts of watershed management on landmargin ecosystems: the Columbia River estuary. 266-306. Watershed Management: balancing 

sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 543 p.

Abstract: Authors describe the pattern of land use development, changes in estuarine 

dynamics/process, and habitat alterations of the Columbia river estuary, with respect to river flow, 

physical properties, and discharge of sediments. State a reduction in 1) mean river flow by ~20%, 2) 

spring freshet discharge by ~50% of natural flow, 3) sediment inflow by ~25%, and 4) tidal prism by 

~15% since the 19 th century. Modifications of the estuary have had significant effects on the 

estuarine processes that occur in the estuarine turbidity maximum (ETM). Subject of headings of 

reference are: 1) Watershed impacts on land-margin ecosystems, 2) Land margin ecosystems of 

illustrative of watershed impacts, 3) River characteristics and the influence of watershed alterations, 

4) River flow dynamics, 5) Water characteristics and constituents, 6) Historic alterations to the 

Columbia river from the watershed to the land margin (includes subsections specifying/describing 

alterations to (a) watershed, (b) river flow frequency spectrum, & (c) sediment transport), 7) Effects 

of modifications to watershed on land-margin ecosystem processes (ETM, estuarine heat budget, 

organic input and food web, consumer populations & ecology). Reference contains excellent 

descriptive tables and figures that illustrate estuarine alterations, historical trends of specific 

physical/hydrologic factors in the estuary, and historical trends in anadromous salmon landings in the 

Columbia river.

Simenstad, C. A., Small, L. F., McIntire, C. D., Jay, D. A., and Sherwood, C. 1990. Columbia River 

estuary studies: An introduction to the estuary, a brief history, and prior studies. Prog. Ocean. 25: 

1-13.

Abstract: Authors provide a short synopsis on: 1) a description of the Columbia river estuary, 2) 

previous investigations and the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program (CREDDP), and 

Definitions and Conventions in CREDDP. Figures illustrate the various regions & zones and 

bathymetry of the Columbia estuary. A table illustrates and quantifies the area of habitat types within 

each region of the Columbia estuary. Extensive reference list included.

Smith, C. 1979. Salmon fishers of the Columbia. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 

Abstract: Author describes a history of the Columbia River fishing industry, from the early Indian 

fishing activities through the modern day, using numerous reference sources. Provides fish landing 

and pack statistics over this period. Discusses the habitat alterations/ losses, due to water 

development, and artificial propagation activites in the Columbia River. Also discusses management 

history of the Columbia River, and regulatory actions of the States of Oregon and Washington since 

the late 1800s.

Stanley, G. F. 1970. Mapping the frontier - Charles Wilson's diary of the survey of the 49th parallel, 

1858-1862, while secretary of the British Boundary Commission. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle, 182 pages. 

Abstract: Charles William Wilson, a British Army officer, documents his travels, activities during his 

assignment in the survey and mapping of the region around the British Columbia and US boundary. 

Lieutenant Wilson provides excellent notes and observations of fisheries resources, Indian fishing, 

and habitat in the upper Columbia basin (e.g. Columbia, Okanogan, Ketttle, Pend d'Oreille rivers 

basins); ;and also documents fisheries/habitat in the Fraser River basin and Skagit River basin. 

(NOTE: an excellent reference to fish stocks and habitat that have not been documented in other 

references/publications related to the Columbia River fisheries resources). The following historical 

notes of historical milestones and fisheries/natural resources information were derived: 1) Mentions 

the survey (late 1850s) of the DD.G.F. Macdonald (civil engineer) in the region between the 

Chilliwack Lake and the Skagit river; p. 13; 2) An illustration of a map of the area (Chilliwack, 

Skagit, Pasayten, Ashnola (Rosalia), Similkameen, and Okanogan Rivers basin) surveyed in 1858-
1860, p. 34-35; 3) Indian fishing and processing for winter use noted on the Fraser River opposite 

Fort langley on 16 October 1858, p. 37; 4) Description of habitat surrounding the Chillawack River 

(tributary to the Fraser R.) at Chilukweyuk Prairie Headquarters camp on 16 June 1859; also 

mentions that salmon abound in this area; p. 49; 5) On 30 July 1859, Lt. Wilson mentions that a 

"fearful fire was raging" in the Skagit Valley beyond the Cascades that originated from an American 

camp fire, which the Americans were too lazy to put out properly; p. 65; 6) On 9 October 1859, Lt. 

wilson mentions, in respect to the Chillawack river and tributaries that "at this season of the year is 

the quantity of dead salmon on the banks of the river; in some of the smaller streams the quantities are 

so numerous that it produces a most intolerable smell and renders the water anything but pleasant for 

drinking purposes...who has been dissecting several of them, thinks this arises from the want of 

insects to feed enormous numbers of salmon that run up the rivers." p. 73; 7) On 22 May 1860, Lt. 

Wilson describes Indian fishing activities at The Dalles (Celilo Falls) and notes that the fish "average 

25 to 40 lbs. weight..." p. 95; 8) An illustration (map) of the region survey in the upper Columbia 

River basin (e.g. Kettle, Colville, Spokane, Pend d'Oreille Rivers) in 1860-1861; p. 104-5; 9) On 29 

June 1860, lt. Wilson briefly describes the habitat of the Spokane River basin in the area between 

Willow Springs and Deep Creek; p. 108-9; 10) On 30 June 1860, Lt. Wilson briefly describes the 

habitat of the Colville River; p. 109; 11) On 2 July 1860, Lt. Wilson reported that the American 

Commission has been brought to a standstill at Pend d'Oreille Lake dur to extensive flooding..."I hear 

a tract of nearly 60 miles of land is flooded there." p. 112; 12) On 1 August 1860, Lt. Wilson 

extensively describes Indian fishing activities at Kettle Falls on the Columbia River, and notes that 

the Indians catch 700 to 1000 fish per day; p. 113-114; 13) On 12 August 1860, Lt. Wilson briefly 

describes the habitat surrounding the Okanogan River in the vicinity of Lake Osoyoos; and mentions 

the salmon fishing methods of the Indians "catching the salmon running at this time in great 

numbers...: p. 118; 14) On 26 August 1860, Lt. Wilson mentions gold miners at work on the 

Similkameen River near the forks of the Similkameen and Ashnolon (Rosalia) rivers, and notes that 

there were about 150 miners in the lower Similkameen basin; p. 124; 15) On 29 August 1860 Lt. 

Wilson briefly describes the habitat of Rock Creek (tributary to Kettle River); p. 125; 16) On 30 

August 1860, lt. Wilson briefly describes the habitat of the Kettle River (Nehoialpitku") in the

vicinity of the town of Rock Creek and also describes the gold mining activity and methods on Rock 

Creek; p. 126-6; 17) On 31 August 1860, Lt. Wilson briefly again describes the habitat of the Kettle 

River ("Nehoialpitku"); p. 128; 18) On 2 September 1860, Lt. Wilson notes that "salmon are 

running in great numbers up the river (the Kettle River "Nehoialpitku"); p. 129; 19) Lt. Wilson 

describes the habitat in the Little Spokane River basin; p. 146. General description of attributes in the 

vicinity of the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. General description of attributes in the 

vicinity of the Palouse river mouth.

Stone, L. 1885. Explorations on the Columbia River from the head of the Clarks Fork to the Pacific 

Ocean, made in the summer 1883, with reference to the selection of suitable place for establishing a 

salmon breeding station. US Bureau of Fisheries Report, 1883 (1885), p. 237-258. Doc. 97 issued 

1886; F11-241. US Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, DC. 

Abstract: Derived reference from Appendix V: An analytical subject bibliography of the publications 

of the Bureau of Fisheries, 1871-1920, by Rose M.E. MacDonald. Document review: Author 

generally describes his investigation of the various Columbia tributaries in terms as potential fish 

hatchery sites; provides some habitat characteristics of the tributaries.

Sutton, Sarah. 1854. Diary of Sarah Sutton 1, 69-86 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: Author provides some detailed descriptions of activities, habitat and surroundings of various 

sub-basins (e.g. Burnt, Powder, and Grande Ronde) during her journey to Oregon; diary abruptly ends 

since the author died at an unknown place in transit of the Grande Ronde valley.

Symons, Thomas W. 1882. Report of an examination of the upper Columbia River and the territory in its 
vicinity in September and October 1881. 47th congress, 1st Session, Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 186, 

Washington; Government Printing Office, 1882. 1-135, maps (complete) p.

Abstract: Author presents a comprehensive account of observations (geologic, botanical, 

hydraulic/topographic characteristics) and surveys of the upper Columbia River and its tributaries 

(e.g. Pend d'Oreille, Kootenay, Colville, Spokane, San Poil, Methow River, etc.) Note: Excellent 

reference to derive habitat information and inferences of the upper Columbia River.

Thomas, D. W. 1983. Changes in the Columbia River estuary habitat types over the past century. 

Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program, Astoria, Oregon. 51 p. (complete) p.

Abstract: The author provides and compares information for habitat of the Columbia river from the 

period predating most human interventions (circa 1870) to the present day (1980). Qualitative and 

quantitative changes in various estuarine habitat are described and illustrated (figures & tables) 

according to:

 (1) Area- river mouth, mixing zone,Youngs Bay, Baker Bay, Grays Bay, Cathlamet Bay, Upper 

Estuary, and Estuary;

(2) Habitat type- deep water, medium depth, shallows/ flats, tidal marshes, tidal swamps, developed 

floodplain, uplands (natural & filled), non-estuarine swamp, and non-estuarine water;

(3) Acreage by period- 1870 and present;

(4) Change- acreage (plus or minus) and percentage;

(5) 1870 acreage, Present estuarine acreage, estuarine area removed, and non-estuarine wetlands 

added.

Includes appendices providing information regarding:

(1) Excerpts from Annual Reports of Superintendent of the US Coast Survey concerning the 

Columbia river survey for 1868-1873;

(2) Verification of the US Coast Survey charts;

(3) An explanation of the boundaries of the historical subarea map;

(4) Subarea reports for the River Mouth, Mixing Zone, Youngs Bay, Baker Bay, Grays Bay, 

Cathlamet Bay, and Upper Estuary;

(5) The nineteen intertidal vegetation communities of the Columbia river, with tables showing their 

present acreage per subarea and their former acreage and importance (Thomas, 1980).

Note : Excellent reference.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Draft environmental statement of Lower 

Monumental lock and dam, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, 

Washington. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Lower Monumental dam 

project. Includes information that describes the Lower Monumental project and the existing 

environment (terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the 

impacts of proposed project alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Draft environmental statement of Lower Granite 

project, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Lower Granite dam 

project. Includes information that describes the Lower Granite project and the existing environment 

(terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of 

proposed project alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Draft environmental statement of lower Snake river 

fish and wildlife compensation U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 1, I-4, 46-

47, 70-106, maps p.

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses proposed actions to compensate fish 
and wildlife losses resulting from four multi-purpose water resources development projects on the 

lower Snake river. Includes information that describes the existing environment (terrestrial and water 

habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of proposed project 

alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Final environmental statement of Ice Harbor lock 

and dam, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 1,11, 

2(1)-2(19), 2(33)-2(36) p.

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Ice Harbor dam project. 

Includes information that describes the Ice Harbor project and the existing environment (terrestrial 

and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of proposed project 

alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Commerce. 1994. (Draft 

environmental statement.). Lower Snake river biological drawdown test. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses a proposed biological drawdown test 

to be conducted a Lower Granite Reservoir, possibly as early as 1995. Include information describing 

the Lower Granite project and the existing environment (terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the 

area of the project.

US Army. 1897. Report of the chief of engineers 1897 in six parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1897. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3456-

3463 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 502-503, Part 4, p. 3404-3406;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 503, Part 4, p. 3407-3414;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 504, Part 4, p. 

3414-3416.

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 520, Part 4, p. 3463-3465;

(5) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 466, Part 5, p.3595-3596 (removal of snags and 

overhanging trees);

(6) Clatskanie river, from mouth to town of Clatskanie -Part 1, p. 467, Part 4, p. 3596-3598;

(7) Lewis river (survey)-Part 1, p. 523, Part 4, p. 3469-3478; and

(8) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 468, Part 4, p. 3406-3407.

General description of attributes for the Snake river in the vicinity of Wild Goose Island (~74 miles 

above the Snake river mouth)- human alterations. General description of attributes for the Snake river 

in the vicinity of Log Island (~38 miles below Lewiston, ID)- human alterations.

US Army. 1898. Report of the chief of engineers 1898 in six parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1898. (Annual report). Government Printing Office, Washington. 3014-

3025 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 
Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 507-508, Part 4, p. 3040;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 505-506, Part 4, p. 3031-3038;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 499, Part 4, p. 

3414-3416.

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 508-509, Part 4, p. 3041-3042;

(5) Willamette Slough (Scappoose Creek/ Bay)- Part 4, p. 3043-3044;

(6) Clatskanie river, from mouth to town of Clatskanie -Part 1, p. 510, Part 4, p. 3049-3050; and

(7) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 507, Part 4, p. 3039.

Detailed description of attributes for the Snake river from mouth to Riparia - derived from House 

Document No. 411, Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session: Survey of the Snake River, Washington, 

From Its Mouth to Riparia (with maps in four sheets). General description of attributes for the Snake 

river in the vicinity of Wild Goose Island (~74 miles above the Snake river mouth)- human alteration. 

General description of attributes for the Snake river in the vicinity of Log Island (~38 miles below 

Lewiston, ID)- human alterations.

US Army. 1899. Report of the chief of engineers 1899 in six parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1899. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 595 Part 4, p. 3246-3247 (includes bathymetry map, dated 

June 1899, of mouth);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 592-593, Part 4, p. 3239-3245;;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 586-588, Part 

4, p. 3229-3231 (includes map of Hayden Slough characteristics & 6 pages of photographs);

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 597-598, Part 4, p. 3249-3250;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 596-597, Part 4, p. 3248-3249;

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 595-596, Part 4, p. 3247-3248; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 594, Part 4, p. 3245-3246.

US Army. 1900. Report of the chief of engineers 1900 in nine parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1900. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 4338-

4343 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 
etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 671-672 & p. 676,-Part 6, p. 4361-4362 & p. 4434-4455 

(includes bathymetry map, dated June 1900, of mouth);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 669-670 & p. 676, Part 6, p. 4352-

4360 & p. 4416-4433 (includes bar above Tongue Pt, Dobelbower Bar, Walker Is. Bar, Martin Is., 

Hunters Bar, Martin Is.-Upper Bar, & Pillar Rock Bar);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 661-663, Part 

6, p. 4334-4337 (includes map of Hayden Slough characteristics;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 674-675, Part 6, p. 4366-4367;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 673-674, Part 6, p. 4364-4365;

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 672-673, Part 6, p. 4363-4364; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 670-671, Part 6, p. 4360-4361.

General description of attributes for the Snake river in the vicinity of Wild Goose Island (~74 miles 

above the Snake river mouth)- human alteration. General description of attributes for the Snake river 

in the vicinity of Log Island (~38 miles below Lewiston, ID)- human alterations. General description 

of attributes for Steptoe Rapids, located ~20 miles below Lewiston, ID. Detailed description of 

attributes for the Snake R. from Asotin to Wolf Cr. vicinity- derived from House Document No. 75, 

Fifty-Sixth Congress, 1st Session: Preliminary examination of Snake River from Asotin, WA to 

Pittsburg, OR (photos and maps included).

US Army. 1901. Report of the chief of engineers 1901 in five parts plus supplement. Annual Reports, 

War Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1901. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3528-3544 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 635-637,-Part 5, p. 3567-3570;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 633-634, Part 5, p. 3557-3565;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 627-628, Part 

5, p. 3499-3501;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 639-640, Part 5, p. 3573-3575;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 638-639, Part 5, p. 3572-3573;

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 637-638, Part 5, p. 3571-3572; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 634-635, Part 5, p. 3565-3567.

Detailed description of attributes for the Snake river from the mouth to Lewiston, ID. Vicinityderived from House Document No. 127, Fifty-Sixth Congress, 2nd Session: Preliminary examination 

of Snake River from Lewiston, ID to Riparia, WA.

US Army. 1902. Report of the chief of engineers 1902 in four parts plus supplement. Annua l Reports, 

War Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1902. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 
development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 556-558,-Part 3, p. 2400-2402;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 554-555, Part 3, p. 2393--2398;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 549-550, Part 

3, p. 2383-2384;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 559-560, Part 3, p. 2404-2405;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 560-561, Part 3, p. 2406-2407;

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 558-559, Part 3, p. 2403-2404; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 556-558, Part 3, p. 2398-2400.

US Army. 1903. Report of the chief of engineers 1903-Volume 9, Part 1, Volume 10, Part 2, Volume 11, 

Part 3, Volume 12, Part 4, & Volume 13, Supplement.. Annual Reports, War Department, Fiscal Year 

Ended June 30, 1903. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 2246-2255, 2270-

2319 and maps p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities rela ted 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 614-616,-Part 3, p. 2271-2318 (includes a comprehensive 

synopsis for the Columbia river entrance, with respect to description, history, physical data, sand 

movements, projects such as jetties, dredging, etc, and appendices with historical surveys & 

bathymetric maps);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 612-614, Part 3, p. 2263-2270 

(includes an index map of the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, opposite p. 2266);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 608-609, Part 

3, p. 2228-2229;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 616-618, Part 3, p. 2319;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 618-619, Part 3, p. 2320-2321 (includes index map of Lewis river);

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 616-617, Part 3, p. 2318; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 614, Part 3, p. 2398-2400.

Note: Excellent reference that provides the history of the Columbia entrance from late 1700's to 

present.

Detailed description of attributes for the Snake R. from Lewiston (ID) to Imnaha river mouth- 14 

maps included. Detailed description of attributes for the Snake R. from Lewiston (ID) to Imnaha river 

mouth- 13 maps to scale of 1:5000 with an index sheet and profile of the river (not printed in report?)

US Army. 1904. Report of the chief of engineers 1904- Volume 5, Part 1, Volume 6, Part 2, Volume 7, 

Part 3, Volume 8, Part 4, & Volume 9, Supplement. Annual Reports, War Department, Fiscal Year 

Ended June 30, 1904. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington . 3468-3471, maps 

p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Cla tskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 
river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 678-681,-Part 3, p. 3543-3553 (includes a bathymetric map of 

the Columbia river entrance for June 1904, opposite p. 3548);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 675--677, Part 3, p. 3534-3542 

(includes an index map of the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, opposite p. 3538);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 670-671, Part 

3, p. 3496-3506;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 682-683, Part 3, p. 3555-3557;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 683-685, Part 3, p. 3557-3558 (includes index map of Lewis river);

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 681-682, Part 3, p. 3554-3555; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 678, Part 3, p. 3543.

US Army. 1905. Report of the chief of engineers 1905- Volume 5, Part 1, Volume 6, Part 2, Volume 7, 

Part 3, Volume 8, Supplement.. Annual Reports, War Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1905. 

(Annual report). Government Printing Office, Washington. 2454-2469, 2482-2495 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 685-687,-Part 3, p. 2484-2492 (includes a bathymetric map of 

the Columbia river entrance for June 1905, opposite p. 2488);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 681-684, Part 3, p. 2475-2483 

(includes an index map of the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, opposite p. 2478);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 676-678, Part 

3, p. 2467-2468;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 688-689, Part 3, p. 2493-2494;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 689-691, Part 3, p. 2495-2496;

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 687-688, Part 3, p. 2492-2493; and

(7) Columbia river below Tongue Point-Part 1, p. 684, Part 3, p. 2483-2484.

US Army. 1906. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1906 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1906. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington . 1984-1999, 2004-2019, 2044-2047 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 757-760,-Part 2, p. 2012-2017-(includes a bathymetric map of 

the Columbia river entrance for May-June 1906, opposite p. 2016);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 754-756, Part 2, p. 2006-2012 -
(includes an index map of the lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, opposite p. 2010);

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 750-751, Part 

2, p. 1998-2000;

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 761-763, Part 2, p. 2018-2019;

(5) Lewis river-Part 1, p. 763-765, Part 2, p. 2019; and

(6) Clatskanie river-Part 1, p. 760-761, Part 2, p. 2017-2018.

Detailed description of the attributes for the Snake R. from Imnaha river mouth to Wolf creek vicinity 

(Pittsburg, OR)- seven map sheets not included. Detailed description of the attributes for the Snake R. 

from Imnaha river mouth to Wolf creek vicinity (Pittsburg, OR)- index map of upper Columbia and 

Snake rivers from Ceilo to Pittsburg Landing.

US Army. 1907. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1907 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1907. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 2168-2179, 2188-2205, 2226-2227 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Columbia river- mouth to mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 767-768;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p.771-772;

3) Mouth of Columbia river- Part 1, p. 773-774, Part 3, p. 2196-2203;

5) Dredge for improving lower Willamette and Columbia rivers- Part 2, p. 1105-1106, Part 3, p. 

2190-2196;

6) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 775-776, Part 3, p. 2203-2204;

7) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 777-778, Part 3, p. 2204-2207;

8) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 776-777, Part 3, p. 2204-2207; and

9) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 779, Part 3, p. 2207.

US Army. 1908. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1908 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1908. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 2244-2257, 2264-2279, 2305-2307 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p.820-822, Part 3, p.2264-2270;

2) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 822-825, Part 3, p. 2270-2274 (Note : opposite page 2272 

is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the year 1908);

3) Dredge for improving lower Willamette and Columbia rivers- Part 1, p. 1143-1144;
4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 825-826, Part 3, p. 2274-2275;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 827-829, Part 3, p. 2277-2278;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 826-8277, Part 3, p. 2275-2277; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 829-830, Part 3, p. 

2278-2279.

US Army. 1909. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1909 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1909. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 2210-2217, 2222-2223, 2230-2238, 2240-2243, 2260-2263 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 859-982, Part 3, p. 2230-2236;

2) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.862-864, Part 3, p. 2236-2239;

3) Dredge for improving lower Willamette and Columbia rivers- Part 1, p.1153 (Note : opposite page 

2238 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the year 1909);

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 865-866, Part 3, p. 2239-2240;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 867-869, Part 3, p. 2241-2242;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 866-867, Part 3, p. 2240-2241; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 869-870, Part 3, p. 

2242-2243.

US Army. 1913. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1913 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1913. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3068-3085, 3092-3095, 3100-3105,3108-3115, 3140-3143 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Oregon Slough (part of the former channel of the Columbia river which separates Hayden Island 

from the Oregon mainland)- Part 1, p. 1338-1340 (Note: Includes table of references to examination 

or survey reports or maps not in the project documents for years 1892, 1896, 1904, & 1912), Part 3, p. 

3083-3084;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 13501354 (Note: Includes table 

of references to examination or survey reports or maps including the project documents for years 
1877, 1891, 1892, & 1900), Part 3, p. 3092-3100;

3) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1354-1359, Part 3, p. 3100-3108 (Note : opposite page 

3104 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the year 1913);

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1359-1361 & p. 1367-1368 (Note: Snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 3108-

3109 & p. 3115 (Note: Snag removal projects);

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1364-1367 & p. 1367-1368 (Note: Snag removal 

projects), Part 3, p. 3113-3114 & p. 3115 (Note: Snag removal projects);

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1362-1364 & p. 1367-1368 (Note: Snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 3110-3112 & p. 3115 

(Note: Snag removal projects); and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1368-1369, Part 3, p. 

3115-3116.

US Army. 1914. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1914 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1914. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3197-3215, 3222-3245, 3266-3267 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Oregon Slough (part of the former channel of the Columbia river which separates Hayden Island 

from the Oregon mainland)- Part 1, p.1387-1389 (Note: Includes table of references to examination 

or survey reports or maps not in the project documents for years 1892, 1896, 1904, & 1912), 

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 1400-1403 (Note: Includes table 

of references to examination or survey reports or maps including the project documents for years 

1877, 1891, 1892, & 1900),

3) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1403-1409 (Note: Includes (1) Table of references to 

examination or survey reports or maps including the project documents for years 1879, 1880, 1883, 

1886,1890, 1893, 1895,1900 & 1903, and (2) Information on the amount of stone used for the 1884 

and 1903 jetty projects);

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1409-1411 & p. 1417-1418 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 

3, p. 3239-3240 & p. 3245 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1414-1417 & p. 1417-1418 (Note: Dredge & snag 

removal projects), Part 3, p. 3243-3444 & p. 3455 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1411-1414 & p. 1417-1418 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 3240-3243 

& p. 3455 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects); and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1418-1419, Part 3, p. 

3245-3246.

US Army. 1915. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1915 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 
Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1915. (Annual report).Government Printing Offic e, 

Washington. 3370-3375, 3388-3389, 3396-3419, 3442-3443 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) The Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and the mouth of the Willamette river- Part 1, p. 

1513-115;

2) Oregon Slough (part of the former channel of the Columbia river which separates Hayden Island 

from the Oregon mainland)- Part 1, p. 1515-1518, Part 3, p. 3389-3390;

3) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 1527-1532, Part 2, p. 1998-1999, 

Part 3, p. 3397-3404;

4) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1533-1538, Part 2, p. 1999-2000, Part 3, p. 3404-3414 

(Note : opposite page 3408 are survey maps of Columbia river entrance for the September and 

December 1914, and March and June 1915);

5) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1538-1540 & p. 1546-1547 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 

2, p. 2000, Part 3, p. 3414-3415 & p. 3418-3419 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

6) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1543-1546 & p. 1546-1547 (Note: Dredge & snag 

removal projects), Part 2, 2001, Part 3, p. 3417--3418 & p. 3418-3419 (Note: Dredge & snag removal 

projects);

7) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1540-1542 & p. 1546-1547 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 2, p. 2000, Part 3, 

p. 3415-3417 & p. 3418-3419 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects); and

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1547-1549, Part 3, p. 

3245-3246.

US Army. 1916. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1916 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1916. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3207-3219, 3226-3227, 3232-3245, 3270-3273 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Portland- Part 1, p. 1649-1655, Part 3, p.3227-3233;

2) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1655-1658, Part 3, p. 3233-3238 (Note : opposite page 

3408 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the June 1916).

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1658-1661 & p. 1668 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 

3239-3240 & p. 3244-3245 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 
Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1663-1667 & p. 1668 (Note: Dredge & snag 

removal projects), Part 3, p. 3242--3244 & p. 3244-3245 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects);

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1661-1663 & p. 1668 (Note: Dredge & snag removal projects), Part 3, p. 3240-3242 & p. 

3244-3245 (Note : Dredge & snag removal projects); and

6) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1668-1670, Part 3, p. 

3245-3246.

US Army. 1917. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1917 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1917. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3322-3323, 3328-3335, 3344-3349, 3376-3377 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1716-1719, Part 2, p. 3329-3333;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1719-1726, Part 

2, p. 3333-3340;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1726-1729, Part 2, p. 3340-3342;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1735-1739, Part 2, p. 3345--3347;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1739-1741, Part 2, p. 3347-3349; and

6) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1742-1744, Part 2, p. 

3349-3350.

US Army. 1918. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1918 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1918. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3370-3371, 3377-3385, 3394-3397 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1763-1766, Part 3, p. 3377-3380 (Note : opposite page 

3378 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the June 1918).;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p.1766-1772, Part 3, 

p. 3381-3388;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1773-1775, Part 3, p. 3389-3390;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 
Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1782-1786, Part 3, p. 3394--3395;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1786-1789, Part 3, p. 3395-3397; and

6) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1789-1791, Part 3, p. 

3397-3398.

US Army. 1919. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1919 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1919. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington . 3424-3441 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p. 1857-1861, Part 3, p. 3433-3437 (Note : opposite page 

3434 is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the June 1919).;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p.1861-1867, Part 3, 

p. 3437-3445.

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1867-1870, Part 3, p.3445-3446 ;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1877-1880, Part 2, p. 3450-3451;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1881-1883, Part 3, p. 3452-3453;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1883-

1885, Part 3, p. 3453-3454; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1885-1888, Part 3, p. 

3454-3455.

US Army. 1920. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 2926-2945 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1851-1854, Part 2, p. 2935-2937 (Note : opposite page 2936 

is survey map of Columbia river entrance for the June 1920);

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1854-1861, Part 

2, p. 2937-2940;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1861-1863, Part 2, p.2941 ;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1870-1873, Part 2, p. 2943-2944;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-
Part 1, p. 1874-1876, Part 2, p. 2944;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1876-

1878, Part 2, p. 2945; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1878-1881, Part 2, p. 

2945.

US Army. 1921. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1921 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1921. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington . 1850-1877, 1886-1895, 1944-1947 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1867-1870 (Note : opposite page 1868 is survey map of 

Columbia river entrance for the June 1921);

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1870-1877;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1877-1880;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1886-1889;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1889-1892;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1892-

1894; and

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1894-1897.

US Army. 1922. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1922 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1922. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, 

Washington . 1868-1899, 1909-1921, 1964-1967 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1887-1889;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1890-1897;

3) Willamette Slough (also known as Multnomah Channel- 21 miles in length, flowing in northerly 

direction, connecting the Willamette and Columbia rivers at St. Helens, OR)- Part 1, p. 1897-1899 

(Note : a new project in the fiscal year 1922);

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1900-1902;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 
Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1909-1912;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1912-1914;

7) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1915-

1916; and

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1916-1919.

US Army. 1923. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1923 in three parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1923. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associa ted activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1743-11746;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1746-1754;

3) Willamette Slough (also known as Multnomah Channel- 21 miles in length, flowing in northerly 

direction, connecting the Willamette and Columbia rivers at St. Helens, OR)- Part 1, p. 1754-1756;

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1756-1759;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1764-1767;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1767-1769;

7) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1769-

1771; and

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1772-1774.

US Army. 1924. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1924 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1924. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1748-1751;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1751-1759;

3) Willamette Slough (also known as Multnomah Channel- 21 miles in length, flowing in northerly 

direction, connecting the Willamette and Columbia rivers at St. Helens, OR)- Part 1, p. 1760-1762;

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1762-1764;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1769-1772;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-
Part 1, p. 1772-1774;

7) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1775-

1776; and

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1777-1779.

US Army. 1925. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1925 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1925. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1676-1679;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1679-1686;

3) Willamette Slough (also known as Multnomah Channel- 21 miles in length, flowing in northerly 

direction, connecting the Willamette and Columbia rivers at St. Helens, OR)- Part 1, p. 1686-1688;

4) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1688-1691;

5) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1699-1701;

6) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1702-1704;

7) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1704-

1705;

8) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1706-1707; and 

9) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1708-1709.

US Army. 1926. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1926 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1926. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1665-1668;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1668-1677;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1677-1680;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1688-1691;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1691-1694;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1694-

1696;
7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1696-1698; and

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1698-1701.

US Army. 1927. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1927 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1927. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributarie s thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1664-1667;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1667-1675;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1675-1678;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1700-1702;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1702-1705;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1705-

1707;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1707-1709; and

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1709-1711.

US Army. 1928. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1928 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1928. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1725-1728;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1728-1736;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1736-1739;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1761-1763;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1764-1766;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1766-

1768;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1769-1770; and

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1771-1773.
US Army. 1929. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1929 in two parts. nnual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1929. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1753-1756;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1756-1764;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1764-1767;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1790-1793;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1793-1796;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1796-

1798;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1798-1800; and

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1800-1802.

US Army. 1930. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1930 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1930. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1844-1847;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1849-1856;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1856-1859;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1886-1889;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1889-1892;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1893-

1895;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1895-1897;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1897-1900;

9) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, p. 1847-1849 (Note : reference provides a short history of the 

stream & condition);

10) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1885-1886 (Note : 
a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided); and

11) Steamboat Slough (also known as Skamokama Slough)- Part 1, p. 1892-1893.

US Army. 1931. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1931 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1931. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1854-1857;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1861-1869;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1869-1872;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1899-1901;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1901-1905;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1906-

1910;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1895-1897;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1911-1913;

9) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, p. 1857-1860 (Note : reference provides a short history of the 

stream & condition);

10) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1896-1899 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided); and

11) Steamboat Slough (also known as Skamokama Slough)- Part 1, p. 1905-1906.

US Army. 1932. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1932 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1932. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1756-1760;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1762-1771;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1771-1773;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1794-1796;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1796-1799;
6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1800-

1802;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1802-1803;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1803-1805;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1792-1794 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided); and

10) Steamboat Slough (also known as Skamokama Slough)- Part 1, p. 1799-1800.

US Army. 1933. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1933 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1933. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1140-1143;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 11145-1150;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1150-1152;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1164-1165;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1166-1168;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1168-

1169;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1802-1803;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1169-1170; and

9) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, p. 1143-1145 (Note : reference provides a short history of the 

stream & condition).

US Army. 1934. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1934 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1934. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1313-1316;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1318-1325;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1325-1326;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 
Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1343-1344;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1344-1347;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1347-

1348;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1348-1350;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1350-1351;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1341-1343 (Note: 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1351-1352;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1334-1337; and

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, - Part 1, p. 1316-1318 (Note : reference provides a short history of 

the stream & condition).

US Army. 1935. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1935 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1935. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1475-1477;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1479-1487;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1487-1488;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1499-1501;

5) Cowlitz river (emptie s into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1501-1503;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1503-

1504;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1504-1505;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1505-1507;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1498-1499 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1507-1508;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1513-1516;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, - Part 1, p. 1477-1478 (Note : reference provides a short history of 

the stream & condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1478-1479; and

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1489-1490.

US Army. 1936. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1936 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1936. Washington Government Printing Office, 
Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1476-1478;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1481-1487;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1487-1489;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1500-1502;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1502-1504;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1504-

1505;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1505-1506;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1506-1507;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1499-1500 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associa ted activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1507-1508;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1517-1524;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)- Part 1, - Part 1, p. 1479-1480 (Note : reference provides a short history of 

the stream & condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1480;

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1489-1490; and

15) Oregon Slough (also known as North Portland Harbor)-Part 1, p. 1498-1499.

US Army. 1937. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1937 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1937. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1487-1489;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1492-1498;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1499-1500;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1509-1510;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1510-1512;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1513-
1514;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1514-1515;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1515-1516;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1508-1509 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1516-1517;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1529-1536;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)-Part 1, p. 1489-1491 (Note : reference provides a short history of the stream 

& condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1491-1492;

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1500-1501;

15) Oregon Slough (also known as North Portland Harbor)-Part 1, p. 1498-1499;

16) Westport Slough (side channel of the Columbia river located 70 mi. below Portland, OR)-Part 1, 

p. 1498-1499;

17) Elockomin Slough (3.5 mi. in length, located 75 mi. below Portland)-Part 1, p. 1512-1513; and

18) Columbia river between Vancouver and Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1528-1529.

US Army. 1938. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1938 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1938. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1740-1742;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1746-1750;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1751-1753;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1762-1763;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1763-1765;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1766-

1767;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1767-1768;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1768-1769;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1761-1762 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1769-1770;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1829-1838;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)-Part 1, p. 1742-1744 (Note : reference provides a short history of the stream 

& condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1745-1746;

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1753-1754;
15) Oregon Slough (also known as North Portland Harbor)-Part 1, p. 1498-1499;

16) Westport Slough (side channel of the Columbia river located 70 mi. below Portland, OR)-Part 1, 

p. 1751;

17) Elockomin Slough (3.5 mi. in length, located 75 mi. below Portland)-Part 1, p. 1765-1766;

18) Columbia river between Vancouver and Bonneville -Part 1, p. 1828-1829;

19) Columbia river between Chinook, WA and head of Sand Island-Part 1, p. 1770-1771; and

20) Information regarding diking & Improving Districts along lower Columbia -Part 1, p. 1774-1808.

US Army. 1939. Report of the chief of engineers US Army 1939 in two parts. Annual Reports, War 

Department, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1939. Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

1) Mouth of the Columbia river- Part 1, p.1890-1893;

2) Columbia and lower Willamette rivers below Vancouver and Portland- Part 1, p. 1897-1903;

3) Clatskanie river (empties through Beaver and Wallace Sloughs into the Columbia river 65 mi 

below Portland)- Part 1, p. 1903-1904;

4) Lewis river (empties into Columbia 26 miles below Portland, stream is tidal to La Center on East 

Fork and Woodland on the North Fork)- Part 1, p. 1914-1915;

5) Cowlitz river (empties into Columbia river 45 mi. below Portland; tidal to 9 miles above mouth)-

Part 1, p. 1915-1917;

6) Skamokawa Creek (empties into Columbia river at RM 34, lower 1.5 mi. tidal)- Part 1, p. 1918-

1919;

7) Grays river (empties into Grays Bay at mouth; tidal in lower 8 mi.)- Part 1, p. 1919-1920;

8) Deep river (formerly known as Alamicut river- a tidal slough extending 4 mi. inland from a 

northerly direction of Grays Bay- Part 1, p. 1920-1922;

9) Lake river ( enters Columbia river near the mouth of the Lewis river)- Part 1, p. 1913-1914 (Note : 

a short history of the stream and associated activities/description is provided);

10) Columbia river at Bakers Bay- Part 1, p. 1922-1923;

11) Columbia river at Bonneville -Part 1, p. 2002-2011;

12) Skipanon Channel (located at Warrenton, OR; originally called Skipanon river, a narrow crooked 

stream with ~1.8 mi tidal)-Part 1, p. 1893-1895 (Note : reference provides a short history of the stream 

& condition);

13) Youngs Bay and Youngs river (lower 8 mi. tidal)-Part 1, p. 1895-1897;

14) Multnomah Channel (also known as Willamette Slough)-Part 1, p. 1904-1905;

15) Oregon Slough (also known as North Portland Harbor)-Part 1, p. 1498-1499;

16) Westport Slough (side channel of the Columbia river located 70 mi. below Portland, OR)-Part 1, 

p. 1751;

17) Elockomin Slough (3.5 mi. in length, located 75 mi. below Portland)-Part 1, p. 1917-1918;

18) Columbia river between Vancouver and Bonneville -Part 1, p. 2000-2002;

19) Columbia river between Chinook, WA and head of Sand Island-Part 1, p. 1923-1924; and

20) Information regarding diking & Improving Districts along lower Columbia -Part 1, p. 1927-1973.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Columbia river downstream of Bonneville dam- maintenance 

disposal plan. US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, 79 p.

Abstract: Reference provides information regarding shoal/bar patterns of the entrance and estuary of 
the Columbia river to Bonneville dam, with respect to current and future dredging operations (and 

disposal areas of materials) for maintenance of the navigation channel. Information (past 

maintenance, present Oregon side disposal, and present Washington side disposal) for each critical 

bar/reach is provided; each is illustrated using an aerial photograph that is detailed with data & 

outlines.

Note : Photographs provide excellent details of inriver, riparian and uplands habitat from an aerial 

perspective.

US Commission of Fish and Fisheries. 1895. Bulletin of the US Fish Commission for 1894, Vol. XIV. 

US Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, DC: Government printing office, 1894. 

Abstract: Eigenmann, Carl H. Results of explorations in western Canada and the northwestern US 

(pages 101-132): References to habitat of Umatilla River, Grande Ronde, Snake River (at Idaho 

Falls); and a milling dam on the Grande Ronde at the town of La Grande. Discussion of species and 

taxonomic characteristics. NOTE: VERY IMPORTANT REFERENCE. Gilbert, C.H. and B.W. 

Evermann. A report upon the physical and natural history investigations in the Columbia River basin 

(pages 169-207): Extensive discussions of habitat characteristics for tributaries of the Lower 

Columbia (Cowlitz, Yakima, Naches, adn Toutle) and the upper Columbia (Colville, Little Spokane, 

Spokane, Snake and tributaries. References that large numbers of salmon used to ascend the Yakima 

River and Columbia River at Kettle Falls; also has stream temperature and flow data for hte Yakima, 

Naches, and Manatash Creek. NOTE: VERY IMPORTANT REFERENCE. McDonald, Marshall. 

The salmon Fisheries of the Columbia River, together with a report upon the physical and natural 

history investigations in the region, by Gilbert and Evermann (Pages 153-207): a presentation of the 

status of salmon and reasons for decline of salmon in the Columbia basin, that was given to the 

Congress. NOTE: VERY IMPORTANT REFERENCE.

US Commission of Fish and Fisheries. 1895. Part XIX: Report of the Commissioner for 1893. US 

Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, DC: Government printing office. 38-41 p.

Abstract: Discussion of the investigations of interior waters of the Columbia River (Clarke Fort, Pend 

d'Oreille Lake, and Pend d' Oreille River) in terms of habitat, physical impediments to 

passage/navigation. Reference to occurrence of chinook salmon and steelhead trout in the Pend 

d'Oreille River. Commissioner stated intentions to expand investigations of habitat/passage of salmon 

throughout the entire Columbia River and its tributaries. Pages 38-41. Discussion of the operation of 

the Clackamas station Oregon (Waldo F. Hubbard, superintendent) during 1892; references to adult 

and egg collection of chinook salmon at the Sandy River. Pages 121-122. Extensive section that 

elaborates on The Fisheries of The Pacific Coast (text and statistical tables), inclusive of the 

Columbia River. Pages 143-304.

US Department of Commerce. 1932. Doctor Ellis demonstrates serious effects of mine pollution. 

Fisheries Service Bulletin No. 211, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Washington 

DC, December 1, 1932. 

Abstract: Notes the history and results of Dr. M.M. Ellis (US Bureau of Fisheries) who studied the 

pollution problem of Couer d'Alene River in Idaho, regarding wastes from silver, lead, and zinc 

mines. Survey extended from Montana to Spokane River in Washington. Provids extensive 

information on extent and type of habitat degradation to streams and lakes caused from mining 

wastes. Mentions that aquatic production of Couer d'Alene Lake was showing decline in the southern 

end from 1911, and species of trout were scarce, p. 3-4.

US House of Representatives. 1881. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1881 in three parts. 47th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. 

Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 
to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activitie s of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river- Part 3, p. 2534-2552 (includes historical description of river mouth for 

physical characteristics and projects since early 1839, and bathymetry maps December 1880 and 

February 1881 opposite p.2546 & 2552 respectively);

(2) Lower Willamette and Columbia rivers from Portland to the sea-Part 1, p. 324-326, Part 3, p. 

2531-2534 (surveys & dredging activities);

(3) Cowlitz River-Part 1, p.331, Part 3, p. 2600-2603 (includes brief historical description of river 

characteristics and commerce in the valley adjacent to the river); and

(4) Young's, Lewis & Clark, and Skipanon rivers, tributaries to Young's Bay-Part 1, p.332.

US House of Representatives. 1887. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1887 in four parts. 50th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. 

Washington Government Printing Office, 

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river- Part 1, p. 327, Part 3, p. 2470 etc. (not available at U of W library for 

review);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 331, Part 3, p. 2507 etc. (not 

available at U of W library for review); and

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 333, Part 3, p. 2524 etc. (not available at U of W library for review).

US House of Representatives. 1891. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1891 in six parts. 52D Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3284-3293 (incomplete) p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 412-413 (channel maintenance and work on low-tide jetty 

from Fort Stevens to Clatsop Spit), Part 5, p. 3314-3328 (includes bathymetry map of Columbia 

mouth for June 1891);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 416-417, Part 5, p. 3362-3367;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 418-419

(4) Willamette river at Swan Island-Part 1, p. 420, Part 5, p.3370-3371;

(5) Young's Bay (improvement of Young's and Klasskuine rivers) at Columbia river mouth-Part 1, p. 
420, Part 5, p.3371-3372 (removal of snags and overhanging trees);

(6) Deep, Skamakawa, and Crooked rivers-Part 1, p. 420

(7) Lower Columbia river between Astoria and Woods Landing (snag removal project)-Part 1, p. 420, 

Part 5, p.3380;

(8) Lewis and Clarke's river (snag & overhanging trees removal project)-Part 1, p. 421, Part 5, 

p.3384-3385;

(9) Grays river (sand bar, snag & overhanging trees removal project)-Part 1, p. 421, Part 5, p.3386-

3387; and

(10) Deep, Skamakawa, and Crooked rivers-Part 5, p. 3378-3379.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the mouth to Lewiston, ID, Table containing 

gradient information for various rapids.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth).

US House of Representatives. 1892. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1892 in four parts and atlas. 52D Congress, 2d Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. 

(Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 2374-2485, 2400-2409, 2708-2715 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 386-388 (channel maintenance and work on low-tide jetty 

from Fort Stevens to Clatsop Spit), Part 3, p. 2808-2818;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 389-391, Part 3, p. 2829-2835;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 392-393, Part 3, p. 2837-2838;

(4) Young's Bay (improvement of Young's and Klasskuine rivers) at Columbia river mouth-Part 1, p. 

393, Part 3, p.2839 (removal of snags and overhanging trees);

(5) Lower Willamette and Columbia rivers, with view of securing 25 feet a low water from Portland 

to the mouth of the Columbia -Part 1, p. 394-395, Part 3, p. 2851-2869; and

(6) Willamette river at Ross Island-Part 3, p.2842-2844.

Atlas: Map no. 126- Depth sounding of the Columbia river mouth, 9,10, 11 June 1892; Map no. 127-

Showing jetty construction at Columbia river mouth

General description of attributes for the Snake river reaches from Riparia to Lewiston, ID.

US House of Representatives. 1893. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1893 in six parts. 53D Congress, 2d Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3374-3377 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 447-449 (channel maintenance and work on low-tide jetty 

from Fort Stevens to Clatsop Spit), Part 4, p. 3488-3503 (includes bathymetry map of mouth, June 
1893 opposite of p. 3496);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 452-455, Part 4, p. 3515-3522;;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 456, Part 4, p. 3526-3527;

(4) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 456-457, Part 4, p.3527-3528 (removal of snags and 

overhanging trees);

(5) Lewis river from mouth to Speliah creek-Part 1, p. 458, Part 4, p. 3533-3536; and

(6) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 449-450, Part 

4, p. 3503-3506.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth).

US House of Representatives. 1894. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1894 in six parts. 53D Congress, 3d Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 2588-2593 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 413-414 (channel maintenance and work on low-tide jetty 

from Fort Stevens to Clatsop Spit), Part 4, p. 2631-2642 (includes bathymetry map of mouth, June 

1894 opposite of p. 2640);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 416-417, Part 4, p. 2654-2659;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 417-418, Part 4, p. 2662-2663;

(4) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 418, Part 4, p.2663 (removal of snags and overhanging 

trees); and

(5) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 414-415, Part 

4, p. 2643-2645.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth). - brief note on original 

condition of this reach.

US House of Representatives. 1895. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1895 in seven parts. 54th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report). Government Printing Office, Washington. 3388-3393 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 460-461, Part 5, p. 3551-3561 (includes bathymetry map of 

mouth, October-November 1894 opposite of p. 3560);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 461-462, Part 5, p. 3561-3566;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 466, Part 5, p. 3594-3595;

(4) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 466, Part 5, p.3595-3596 (removal of snags and 
overhanging trees);

(5) Clatskanie river, from mouth to town of Clatskanie -Part 1, p. 467, Part 5, p. 3596-3598 

(description of existing conditions prior to project improvements);

(6) Lewis river from La Center to its mouth-Part 1, p. 467, Part 5, p. 3600-3601;

(7) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 468, Part 5, p. 3605-3606 

(includes bathymetry map of south channel, Tongue Pt to Smith Point,dated November 1894 opposite 

p. 3608); and

(8) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 462-463, Part 

5, p. 3566-3568.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth). - brief note on original 

condition of this reach.

US House of Representatives. 1896. Annual report of the chief of engineers, US Army, to the Secretary 

of War for the year 1896 in six parts. 54th Congress, 2d Session, Ex. Doc.1, pt 2, vol.II. (Annual 

report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3382-3389 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 400-401, Part 5, p. 3250-3256 (includes bathymetry map of 

mouth, October-November 1894 opposite of p. 3560);

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 401-422, Part 5, p. 3257-3262;

(3) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 415, Part 5, p. 3385-3386;

(4) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 405, Part 5, p.3283; and

(5) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 401, Part 5, p. 3256-3257;

(6) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 402-403, Part 

5, p. 3263-3266.

General description of attributes for the Snake river from the Seven Devils Mining District (~65 miles 

below Huntington Bridge) to Huntington Bridge (near the Burnt river mouth). - brief note on original 

condition of this reach.

Victor, E. 1935. some effects of cultivation upon stream history and upon the topography of the Palouse 

region. Northwest Science IX(3): 18-19 (September, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses habitat alterations (bank erosion, channel scouring, etc.) along stream 

courses in the Palouse region, due to human activities and environmental dynamics; mentions Miller 

Creek (near Walla Walla), Touchet (near Waitsburg) and Palouse rivers as examples of channel 

changes.

Ward, H. B. 1939. The migration and conservation of salmon. Publication of the American Association 

of Advanced Sciences 8: 60-71.

Abstract: Author discusses habitat influences on behavior of salmonid fishes; emphasizes that habitats 

are not static, and that it is important to understand environmental factors that modify behaviors. 

Makes continous references to efects of temperature on behavior patterns and outcomes. (Pertinent to 

life history strategies paper.)
Washington Department of Fisheries. 1938. Report of the preliminary investigations into the possible 

methods of preserving the Columbia River salmon and steelhead at the Grand Coulee Dam. Report 

prepared for the US Bureau of Reclamation by the State of Washington Department of Fisheries, in 

cooperation with the Department of Game and the US Bureau of Fisheries. 121 pp. 

Abstract: Comprehensive report of investigative findings regarding fish counts, biology, behavior, 

habitat of salmon stocks in the tributaries of the Columbia River above Rock Island to Grand Coulee. 

Includes trap counts of upstream and downstream migrants at Rock Island and tributaries; some 

biometric data of these trapped fish are presented (Wenatchee, Methow, Twisp, etc.) Some 

environmental data such as water temperature and water flow are given for some tributaries. Briefly 

describes water development projects (irrigation) and their associated fish protection facilities. 

Excellent document for deriving historical background information regarding the planning of fish 

salvage and mitigation measures associated with the Grand Coulee project.

Washington State. 1907. 16th and 17th annual reports of the state fish commissioner and game warden: 

1905-1906. State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game, Seattle, Washington. C.W. 

Corham, Public Printer, 1907. 

Abstract: The commissioner (John L. Riseland) discusses the situation of fishing, fishing seasons, and 

disjointed regulations of Oregon and Washington in the lower Columbia River; expresses concern 

that if the early season is not shortened, the Royal chinook will further decline and lead to situation 

where packers will have to depend on fall season rather than early and mid seasons. Provides 

newspaper quotes from the Portland Oregonian that support his statements. pages 10-14. Provides a 

report on Washington salmon hatcheries in the Columbia basin; notes that the Wenatchee Hatchery is 

the only hatchery tributary to the Columbia that propagates Silverside salmon (coho). Also mentions 

that manager of the Colville Hatchery could only acquire 90,000 silverside salmon eggs in the stream 

(Colville River); and that the facility was deemed not to operate. Notes that the Klickitat hatchery 

was never completed, and was abandoned in 1902, pages 24-25. Notes that the Wind River Logging 

company, on the Wind River, flooded the Wind River, carrying all their logs into the Columbia River; 

this citation documents the use of crib dams to contain logs and flush logs down the Wind River, page 

30. Notes that the Methow hatchery is the only remaining salmon hatchery (Colville, Little Spokane 

and Klickitat hatcheries are closed) on the east side of the Cascades to propagate silverside salmon; 

infers that Colville, Little Spokane and Klickitat Rivers have or had runs of coho salmon, pages 30-

131. Provides letters that note run and habitat conditons on the Klicktat, Colville, Wenatchee, and 

Lewis Rivers, Page 39-42.

Wilkes, Charles. 1856. Narrative of the United States expedition. During the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 

1841, 1842. By Charles Wilkes, USN. Commander of the expedition, member of the american 

philosphical society, etc. In five volumes, with thirteen maps. Vol IV. G.P. Putnam & Co., 321 

Broadway, New York. 1-4 (notes on work) p.

Abstract: Author provides an account of his experiences and observations during his travels in the 

Columbia river basin; notes habitat/landscapes, fauna, flora of various reach sections of the Columbia 

river and tributaries.

Wissmar, R. C., J.E. Smith, B.A. McIntosh, H.W. Li, G.H. Reaves, and J.R. Sedell. 1994. A history of 

resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon and Washington (early 1800s1900s). Northwest Science 68, Special Issue: 1-35.

Abstract: Authors provide a historical review of human activities (mining, livestock, irigation, and 

logging) and habitat alterations in the Okanogan, Methow, Little Naches, Grande Ronde, and John 

Day basins) Table 1 presents a chronology of major settlement, human activities, and natural 

resources development in these basins.

Wood, Tallmadge R. 1903. Letters of Tallmadge R. Wood. The Quarterly of the Oregon Historical 
Society VI(1): 80-85 (March 1903).

Abstract: Author notes in letter of 19 February 1846 (Clatsop, Co. Oregon Territory) that: 1) six 

sawmills and five flour mills are now in operation (the Clatsop county region), p.81; 2) heavy timber 

and broken land along each side of the river (Columbia River from Astoria to the mouth of the 

Cowlitz River),p. 82; Provides general description of the habitat/vegetation/soil along the banks of 

the Columbia River in the Clatsop County area.

LIFE-HISTORY

 Reference List

Bayha, Keith. 1974. Anatomy of a river Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, 1 Columbia 

River, P.O. Box 908, Vancouver, Washington 98660, Vancouver, Washington. 

Abstract: Authors present a comprehensive evaluation of water requirements for the Hell's Canyon 

reach of the Snake river, based on field surveys of March 1973. Surveys included collection of 

information regarding the time of travel of the stage wave and water mass, water quality, biological 

resources, etc. Includes photographs that illustrate the habitat (terrestrial and water) of this area.

Craig, J. A. 1935. The effects of power and irrigation projects on the migratory fish of the Columbia 

River. Northwest Science IX(1): 19-24 (February, 1935).

Abstract: Author discusses the effects of human land and water uses (logging, mining, power, and 

irrigation) on fisheries resources in the Columbia basin. Provides examples of habitat alterations 

imposed by these human uses. Briefly discusses life history and ecology of all anadromous salmonid 

species inhabiting the Columbia River basin. Discusses how the use of streams for power and 

irrigation purposes affect migratory salmon species: 1) obstacles that obstruct or delay migration of 

adult upstream to natal steams; and 2) injurious or delay impediments to downstream juvenile 

migration. Presents fishways and screening as mechanisms to protect fish, and the use of artificial 

propagation in the case of high dams.

Davis, H. S. 1903. The migrations and growth of salmon fry. Pacific Fisherman I(4): 9-10.Seattle, 

Washington and Vancouver, B.C. complete p.

Abstract: Author provides an excellent synopsis of the state of knowledge for life history information 

regarding young salmon species in the Pacific Northwest region (including the Columbia River). 

Describes life history in terms of summer residents, and rate of growth. Proposes 1) application of 

information and results to other salmon streams and 2) bearing of these facts on artificial propagation, 

notes the following: 1) growth of salmon in lower Columbia tributaries is faster than that of upper 

Columbia basin tributaries (east of the Cascades) and 2) nothing is known of the age at which fry in 

the Columbia reach the sea. NOTE: excellent reference.

Franchere, Gabriel. 1969. Journal of a voyage on the north west coast of North America during the 

years 1811, 1812, 1813, and 1814 The Champlain Society, Toronto. 78,82-83, 96-97, 100-101, 110-

111, 142-143, 148-149, 152-157 p.

Abstract: Author provides an account of his observations and experiences during his travels in the 

Columbia river basin during the early 19th century. Briefly notes habitat, flora, and fauna at various 

points of travel up and down the Columbia river and its tributaries. General description of attributes 

for the Snake river mouth.

Harts William W. 1899. Preliminayr examination of Snake river, from Asotin, Wash., to Pittsburg 

Landing, Oreg. 56th Congress, 1st Session, House Document No. 75: U.S. House of 

Representatives, 

Abstract: Author provides a survey report describing the Snake river from Asotin (Washington) to 

Pittsburg (Oregon); report includes information describing the river channel (slope, width, 
obstructions) and lands peripheral to the river. Includes photographs of various river reaches that 

present problems/obstacles to water navigation.

Harts, William W. 1900. Survey of Snake river from Lewiston, Idaho, to Riparia, Wash. 56th 

Congress, 2nd Session, House Document No. 127: U.S. House of Representatives, 

Abstract: Author provides a survey report describing the Snake river from Lewiston to Riparia; report 

includes information describing the river channel (slope, width, obstructions) and lands peripheral to 

the river. Includes a table of survey data for various river sections from Lewiston to Riparia, that 

present problems/obstacles to water navigation.

Jones, W. A. 1888. The salmon fisheries of the Columbia River. (Letter from the Secretary of War).50th 

Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 123: Washington D.C. 18-21 p.

Abstract: Author presents a comprehensive perspective of the status and various facets on 

the salmon fisheries of the Columbia River, in a report (seven chapters) to the Secretary of 

War. Chapters of the report cover the following: Chapter I - General descriptions of the 

anadromous salmon species and their life history and habits in the Columbia and Snake 

Rivers; Chapter II - the depletion of salmon in streams of the Columbia River; Chapter III -

the fisheries of the Columbia River; Chapter IV - the question of salmon fisheries being an 

obstruction to navigation; Chapter V - Artificial propagation of salmon; Chapter VI -

Suggestions; and Chapter VII - Quantity, value, and price of salmon paid to fishermen over 

the past 20 years. Includes photographs of salmon and fishing apparatus. Excellent 

reference.

Karr, M. B. Tanovan R. Turner and D. Bennett. 1992. Water temperature control project Snake river 

interim report: model studies and 1991 operations A report from the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission Public Policy Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Pacific Division 

Reservoir Control Center, and University of Idaho Fish and Wildlife Resources Department. 

Abstract: Authors model and provide water temperature data for the Snake river downstream of 

Lewiston, Idaho for the water year 1991. Figure 3 of the report illustrates the water temperature 

profile of the Snake river at its mouth (1955-1958) and below Ice Harbor Dam (1987 and 1990). 

Figure 4 of the report compares the water temperatur profile of the Snake river above and below the 

mouth of the Imnaha & Salmon rivers and below Hells Canyon Dam.

McMurrick, J. P. 1910. The life history of the Pacific salmon. Transactions of the Canadian Institute 

IX(20), Part I, August 1910: 23-44.

Abstract: Author gives background on the biology and distribution of the species of family 

Salmonidae in North America, with emphasis on the genus Salmo and Oncorhynchus. 

Comprehensively discusses the life history and biology of Pacific salmon species in the Columbia and 

Fraser rivers; also gives observations of big run years, and canning statistics for British Columbia and 

Washington.

McMurrick, J. P. 1912. The life cycles of the Pacific coast salmon belonging to the genus Oncorhynchus 

as revealed by their otolith and scale markings. Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of 

Canada, Third Series VI(Transactions Section IV): 9-28, 10 plates.

Abstract: Author describes the life history of chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and pink salmon based 

on comprehensive analyses and comparisons of scales and otolith structures; derived scales and 

otoliths from salmon canneries in the Esquimalt and Claxton Canneries in British Columbia, Canada. 

Includes photographic plates of scales.

Mudd, D., Boe, L., and Bugert, R. 1980. Evaluation of wildlife habitat developed on government 

project lands along Snake river in Washington. Washingtn Department of Game, Habitat 
Management Division, 62, maps p.

Abstract: Report provides a baseline of wildlife resources and habitat in areas of the lower Snake 

river affected by the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite dam projects.

Netboy, Anthony. 1958. Salmon of the Pacific Northwest: fish versus dams. Binfords & Mort, 

Publishers, Portland, Oregon. 122 pages. 

Abstract: Author discusses: (1) Life history and migrations of Pacific species in the Columbia River; 

(2) Indian fisheries and methods prior to and after the settlement of white men in the Columbia basin; 

(3) Historical and contemporary alterations of the Columbia River (e.g. land use, pollution, and 

dams); (4) Fish passage, management, and propagation methods to overcome the human alterations in 

the Columbia River.

Netboy, Anthony. 1980. The Columbia River salmon and trout; their fight for survival. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle and London. 180 pages. 

Abstract: Author documents and describes (1) the pristine Columbia River; (2) The Columbia River 

Indian fishery; (3) life history of Columbia River salmon and steelhead trout species; (4) Intrusive 

alterations (e.g. irrigation, pollution, dams) of the watershed and consequences (e.g. decline of Pacific 

salmon species); (5) Fishery compensation programs in the Columbia River; and (6) Endanger 

species. Contains a comprehensive bibliography of Columbia River related historical and 

contemporary references.

Park, Donn. 1993. Snake river water temperature- 1950 's Unpublished memorandum from Donn Park 

(Biomark Inc.) to Dennis Dauble (Battelle Richland, Washington, 19 February 1993. 

Abstract: Author provides water temperature data for the Snake river at Oxbow, Oregon (1957 and 

1958) and at Clarkston, Washington (1958); these data were cited from U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Department of Interior) publications.

Rich, W. H. 1935. The biology of the Columbia River salmon. Northwest Science IX(1): 3-14.

Abstract: Author provides an historical background and purposes of biological investigations of 

salmon in the Columbia River basin; and the general distribution of anadromous salmonid species. A 

general discussion of the biology, life history, and behavior of anadromous salmonid species is 

presented. Extensive information provided in support of the Home Stream Theory for homing 

behavior of anadromous salmonids, and the effects of environmental factors (e.g. water quality) on 

homing to parent stream/tributary thereof.

Rich, W. H. and Holmes, H. B. 1929. Experiments in marking young chinook salmon on the Columbia 

River, 1916-1927. US Bureau of Fisheries Bulletin 44, pages 215-264. 

Abstract: Report on the marking experiments of the US Bureau of Fisheries during an 11 year period. 

Provides the methods, procedures and results for various marking experiments conducted at 

Bonneville, Klaskanie, Little White Salmon, Herman Creek, and Big White Salmon hatcheries. 

Purpose of marking experiments was to test relative efficiencies of various artificial propagation 

procedures, and to determine life history strategies of salmon. Provides extensive morphometric 

information (fish scale, body weight, body length, age etc.) for chinook salmon. Conclusions on 

experiments are categorized as Percentage of Returns, Success of Long and Short Term Periods of 

Rearing, Interpretation of Scale, Time of Entering Freshwater, Age at Maturity, and Homing Instinct.

Rutter, C. 1902. Natural history of the quinnat salmon. Bulletin US Bureau of Fisheries, pages 65-141. 

Abstract: Author provides a comprehensive treatment of the life history of chinook salmon in the 

Sacramento River basin. Extensive life history and behavioral information of young chinook salmon 

are provided Hatchery plantings of chinook are observed during their freshwater residency, and 

evalution of adult returns of these plantings are evaluated.
Scheufele, Roy W. 1970. History of the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee. Prepared under 

sponsorship of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Committee. 

Abstract: A. Author presents a comprehensive details regarding the genesis, policy & objectives, 

actions, and chronology of meeting/events for the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, during 

the period of 1946-1967. Provides information regarding governmental legislation (laws) and policy 

framework, institutional relationships with other state and federal agencies in the Columbia basin, and 

accomplishments of the agency. NOTE: Reference is very important in terms of its description of 

policy and philosophy governing water and fisheries policy in the Columbia River basin during the 

period of 1946-1967. B. Genesis of Agency and Federal Action (pages 3-9): 1) In 1902, the US 

Congress passes the Reclamation Act; 2) In 1905, the US Congress establishes the US Forest 

Service; 3) In 1920, the US Congress passes the Federal Power Act; 4) In 1925, the US Congress 

passes a statute that directed the inventory of those streams in the US where power development 

appeared feasible and practical in coombination with navigation, flood control, and irrigation; 5) In 

1927, the US Congress passes the River and Harbor Act, which commenced the survey of Pacific 

Northwest streams, that were inventoried under the 1925 congressional statute; 6) In 1936, the US 

Congress passes the Flood Control Act; 7) In 1936 (?) the US Congress establishes the US Soils 

Conservation Service; 8) In 1943, the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission, an arm of 

the National Resources Planning Board, is abolished by the US Congress; 9) In July 1943, the 

governors of the Pacific Northwest States establish the Northwest States' Development Association to 

coordinate and correlate plans of member states as they relate to unified development of all the 

resources of the Pacific Northwest; 10) In December 1943, the Northwest States' Development 

Association prepares a program and governing principles of emergency and immediate post-war 

projects for the development of the Columbia Drainage Basin; 11) In summer 1939, the US 

Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and War (Corps of Engineers) enter a tripartitie agreement to 

coordinate their work, both in Washington DC and field regions; 12) In December 1943, the US 

Federal Power Commission joins the tripartite of the US Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and 

War (Corps of Engineers), and execute a quadpartite agreement that provided monthly meetings of 

these agencies to discuss restuls of studies/investigations, to adjust differences of opinions, and to 

promote ways/means for implementing other provisions of the agreement-representatives of these 

four Departments constituted the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Commission (FIABRC); 13) In 

February 1946, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, the second field committee of Federal 

Inter-Agency River Basin Commission, is established to facilitate progress on the multipurpose 

development projects presetnly authorized by congress (p. 7-9 provides details of conditions of the 

agreement.); 14) In 1965, the US Congress passes the Water Resources Planning Act; 15) In June 

1967, the Pacific River Basins Commission takes over the functions of the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee. C. A chonicle of agency meetings and general outcomes from these meetings is 

presented (pages 10-123) 1) In March 1947, the Assistant Secretary of Interior (Warner W. 

Gardner) sends a memorandum/recommendations to the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin 

Commission (FIABRC) that propose the construction of mainstem dams on the Columbia below 

Okanogan R. and on the Snake below the Salmon R., with the exception of the proposed McNary 

Dam, be postponed until 1958 (for 10 years) provided that alternate sources of power could be 

devloped to meet Bonneville Power Administration load demands; this moratorium period would 

allow the US Fish & Wildlife Service and state fisheries agencies to determine remedial measures 

(per research, studies, and planning) that could be taken to preserve the Columbia River fishery; p. 

22-23); 2) On 2 April 1947, the Assistant Secretary of Interior (Warner W. Gardner) memorandum 

was forwarded by the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Commission (FIABRC) to the Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee for study, discussion, and recommendations; 3) On 23 July 1947 at 

the 11th meeting of the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, (a) Fred Foster (US Fish & 

Wildlife Service) outlined the Lower Columbia River Fishery Program, consisting of obstruction 

removal, pollution abatement, diversion screening, fishway construction, hatchery construciton and 

fish sanctuaries - a program estimated at a cost of $20 million, and (b) a Fish & Wildlife 
subcommittee was established to coordinate and integrate fish and wildlife programs with water 

esource program; p. 25; 4) On 22 September 1947, the Fish & Wildlife Subcommittee (Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee) filed a report that summarized factual data relating to navigation, 

power, fish, irrigation, Indians, and National Defense, p. 26; 5) On 8 October 1947, at its 12 meeting, 

the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee unanimously approved and forwarded a letter to the 

Federal Inter-Agency river basin Commission (FIABRC) recommending that a) Grand Coulee power 

installations proceed, construction of Hungry Horse, Foster Creek, Detroit, and McNary Dam 

proceed, etc. b) authorized dams on the columbia River system not to be rescheduled, approval of the 

Lower Columbia River Fishery Program, and compensaiton of Treaty Indians, and c) upstream dams 

be authorized promptly and if authorized before 1958 they be constructed ahead of 

planned/unauthorized The Dalles, John Day and Arlington Dams unless the fish problem has been 

solved in the interim, etc., p. 26; 6) In 1950, the columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee establishes 

the Fisheries Steering Committee, and this subcommittee prepares a comprehensive program of 

research and construction (to cost 25-50 million dollars) and proposed to finance it by a tax of fifty 

cents per kilowatt year (note proposal failed and caused an outcry from power interests) p. 27; 7) On 

17 September 1948, at its 21st meeting, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee authorized a 

Technical Subcommittee for Operating Plan to prepare an integrated and coordinated operating plan 

for the release and control of waters in connection with Columbia River development program (note 

plan was never consummated) p. 32; 8) On 10 November 1948 at its 22nd meeting of the columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee, the Corps of Engineers presented an eight volume "Review of the 

Columbia River and its Tributaries,: a report costing $5 million; p. 33; 9) On 28 June 1950 at its 40th 

meeting, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency committee approved an interim fishery research program 

(prepared by the Fish & Wildlife Subcommittee) that called for studies of fish passage at river 

obstructions, impoundment studies, artificial propagation, and studies of life history, trends and 

abundance, trout habitat and pollution, at an estimated $600,000 per year - another $500,000 was 

included for stream development and improvement; p. 46; 10) On 19 January 1955, the Columbia 

Basin Inter-Agency Committee directed the Fisheries Steering Committee to a) prepare an Upper

Columbia River fishery program comparable to that in effect on the Lower Columbia River, b) a 

program of needed fishery research for the whole area, and c) explore ways and means of 

implementing/financing both programs; p. 83; 1) On 13 March 1957, the Columbia Basin InterAgency Committee accepted the Fisheries Steering Committee report with respect to a) prepare an 

Upper Columbia River fishery program comparable to that in effect on the Lower Columbia River, 

and b) a program of needed fishery research for the whole area - established resarch priorities and 

recommendaitons as to what agency would carry out specific studies recommended; p. 91; 12) On 

13-14 November 1963, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee heard a panel of University of 

Washington academicians (James Crutchfield, W.F. Royce, D. Bevan, Robert Fletcher, R.C. Van 

Cleave, and R.W. Johnson) carry on extensive dialogues on "Fisheries in the Pacific Northwest - the 

academicians view this controversial issue," Don Bevan was very critical of fishery regulation; p. 

114; 13) On 14 December 1965 at the 132 meeting of the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, 

the Executive Subcommittee presented its recommendations on seven fishery proposals (previously 

submitted by the Fisheries Steering Committee on 6 October 1965) summarized as follows: Proposal 

1 - Greater Committee representation for salmon and steelhead, Proposal 2 - Reduction of the use of 

the Columbia River water for nuclear production to reduce heat pollution of the river, Proposal 3 -

Establishment of working contract with Canada on Fishery problem, Proposal 4 - Development of 

small watersheds for power production should be discontinued, Proposal 5 - Assure proper attention 

to fish requirements in any inter-basin water transfer studies, Proposal 6 - Fishery research should be 

continued, the Proposal 7 - The Columbia River Fishery Development program should be retained; 

14) On 29 September 1966 at its second Columbia -North Pacific study review, the Columbia Basin 

Inter-Agency Committee accepted the report of the Water Supply and Pollution Subcommittee 

entitled "Columbia River - Water Temperature Conditions and Research Requirements" report 

stemmed from one of the seven fishery proposals (previously submitted by the Fisheries Steering 
committee on 6 October 1965; p. 21); (15) On 9 June 1967, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency 

committee held its last meeting, and handed over its responsiblities, function and records to the new 

River Basins Commission, p. 122.

Symons, Thomas W. 1882. Examination of Snake river from Lewiston to the mouth of Salmon river, 

Idaho 47th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Document No. 112: U.S. Senate, 

Abstract: Author provides a survey report describing the Snake river from Lewiston (Idaho) to the 

mouth of the Salmon river; report includes information describing the river channel (slope, width, 

obstructions) and lands peripheral to the river. Includes survey maps of various river reaches that 

present problems/obstacles to water navigation.

Taylor, Harry. 1898. Survey of Snake river, Washington, from its mouth to Riparia 55th Congress, 

2nd Session, House Document No. 411: U.S. House of Representatives, 

Abstract: Author provides a survey report describing the Snake river from its mouth to Riparia; report 

includes information describing the river channel (slope, width, obstructions) and lands peripheral to 

the river. Includes survey maps of various river reaches that present problems/obstacles to water 

navigation.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1947. Columbia river and tributaries review report, 

interim report no. 3, Hells Canyon, appendix A- hydrology U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Abstract: This report includes comprehensive information regarding the hydrological characteristics 

of the Snake river in the Hells Canyon area. Report includes general information describing the 

topography, uplands, plain, drainage area, tributaries, geology, soils, stream flow, etc. for this area of 

the Snake river.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Draft environmental statement of Lower 

Monumental lock and dam, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, 

Washington. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Lower Monumental dam 

project. Includes information that describes the Lower Monumental project and the existing 

environment (terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the 

impacts of proposed project alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Draft environmental statement of Lower Granite 

project, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Lower Granite dam 

project. Includes information that describes the Lower Granite project and the existing environment 

(terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of 

proposed project alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Draft environmental statement of lower Snake river 

fish and wildlife compensation U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 1, I-4, 46-

47, 70-106, maps p.

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses proposed actions to compensate fish 

and wildlife losses resulting from four multi-purpose water resources development projects on the 

lower Snake river. Includes information that describes the existing environment (terrestrial and water 

habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of proposed project 

alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Final environmental statement of Ice Harbor lock 
and dam, Snake river, Washington U.S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington. 1,11, 

2(1)-2(19), 2(33)-2(36) p.

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses the proposed Ice Harbor dam project. 

Includes information that describes the Ice Harbor project and the existing environment (terrestrial 

and water habitat/resources) in the area of the project; and describes the impacts of proposed project 

alternatives.

United States. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Commerce. 1994. (Draft 

environmental statement.). Lower Snake river biological drawdown test. 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement addresses a proposed biological drawdown test 

to be conducted a Lower Granite Reservoir, possibly as early as 1995. Include information describing 

the Lower Granite project and the existing environment (terrestrial and water habitat/resources) in the 

area of the project.

United States. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries. 1894. Report of the Commissioner of Fish and 

Fisheries on investigations in the Columbia river basin in regard to the salmon fisheries. 53 rd 

Congress, 2nd Session Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 200. Government Printing Office, 

Washington. 3-57, figures, maps p.

Abstract: Document contains three reports: 

1) "The salmon fisheries of the Columbia river basin" by Marshall McDonald; this report discusses 

(a) conditions determining the salmon production of a river basin, (b) the limits of migration of 

salmon, (c) decrease of salmon in the head waters of the Columbia river, (d) detailed statistics of the 

salmon industry of the Columbia river, 1889-92, (e) artificial propagation of salmon on the Columbia 

river, (f) the fishing grounds, and (g) the fishing season.

2) "A report upon investigations in the Columbia river basin, with descriptions of four new specie" by 

C. H. Gilbert and B.W. Barton; this report generally describes salmon resources in terms of their 

status, biology and distribution in the mainstem and tributaries of the lower Columbia, upper 

Columbia and Snake rivers.

3) "Notes on Willamson's whitefish in breeding color, from Little Spokane river, Washington, and 

remarks on the distribution of the species" by B. A. Bean.

Document includes photographs for sections of the Little Spokane river and the Kettle Falls of the 

upper Columbia river; also includes a plan view maps of the Columbia river from Ceilo Falls to the 

mouth.

US Army. 1897. Report of the chief of engineers 1897 in six parts. Annual Reports, War Department, 

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1897. (Annual report).Government Printing Office, Washington. 3456-

3463 p.

Abstract: The reference contains comprehensive information regarding projects and activities related 

to the channelization, diking, and channel/bank maintenance of the mouth, estuarine, tidal river zones 

of the Columbia and Willamette rivers and other tributaries thereof (e.g. Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Lewis, 

Skamokawa, Grays, and Deep). Includes information regarding original and existing conditions of the 

river section/surrounding area (may be relative to habitat conditions) and notes commerce & 

development activities of adjacent area.The following estuarine/tidal river zone (of the lower 

Columbia region) and associated activities information (e.g. surveys, project history, costs & results, 

etc.) are covered:

(1) Mouth of Columbia river-Part 1, p. 502-503, Part 4, p. 3404-3406;

(2) Columbia and Willamette rivers below Portland, OR- Part 1, p. 503, Part 4, p. 3407-3414;

(3) Columbia river between Vancouver, WA and mouth of Willamette river-Part 1, p. 504, Part 4, p. 

3414-3416.

(4) Cowlitz river- Part 1, p. 520, Part 4, p. 3463-3465;

(5) Young's and Klasskuine rivers-Part 1, p. 466, Part 5, p.3595-3596 (removal of snags and 
overhanging trees);

(6) Clatskanie river, from mouth to town of Clatskanie -Part 1, p. 467, Part 4, p. 3596-3598;

(7) Lewis river (survey)-Part 1, p. 523, Part 4, p. 3469-3478; and

(8) South channel of Columbia river (in front of Astoria, OR-Part 1, p. 468, Part 4, p. 3406-3407.

General description of attributes for the Snake river in the vicinity of Wild Goose Island (~74 miles 

above the Snake river mouth)- human alterations. General description of attributes for the Snake river 

in the vicinity of Log Island (~38 miles below Lewiston, ID)- human alterations.

US Department of Commerce. 1921. Results of salmon marking experiments. Fisheries Service Bulletin 

No. 72, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Washington DC, May 2, 1921. 

Abstract: Notes a report of Willis H. Rich, entitled "Returns from experimentation on the marking of 

young chinook salmon on the Columbia River," Mentions that experiments 1) corroborate the theory 

that the arrangement of the scale circuli provides an accurate record of the previous life history of 

fish, 2) contributes to the knowledge of the biology of salmons as it relates to the hereditary character 

of the factors determining adult run entry into freshwater and upward migration to spawning grounds, 

and 3) provides evidence that spring run progeny produce spring run returns, and fall run produce fall 

run returns., p.3.

US Department of Commerce. 1923. Notes from the division of fish culture. Fisheries Service Bulletin 

No. 97, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Washington DC, June 1, 1923. 

Abstract: Mentions a recently published US Bureau of Fisheries pamphlet "The Story of the Salmon" 

that briefly discusses the salmon life history, development of the salmon canning industry, the 

growing depletion of salmon runs in Alaska and the Pacific Coast States, the need for conservation, 

and methods that have been adopted to preserve salmon runs, p. 5.

US Department of Commerce. 1929. Treaty in regard to the sockeye salmon fisheries. Fisheries Service 

Bulletin No. 167, Bureau of Fisheries, US Department of Commerce, Washington DC, April 1, 1929. 

Abstract: Notes the signing of a treaty for the preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon 

fisheries of the Fraser River system; the treaty provides for the establishment of an International 

Fisheries Commission. The Commission was in charge of making a thorough investigation into the 

life history of sockeye salmon, was given the power to maintain and develop hatcheries and to 

develop the fisheries, and to regulate the sockeye salmon fisheries, p.1.

Ward, H. B. 1939. The migration and conservation of salmon. Public ation of the American Association 

of Advanced Sciences 8: 60-71.

Abstract: Author discusses habitat influences on behavior of salmonid fishes; emphasizes that habitats 

are not static, and that it is important to understand environmental factors that modify behaviors. 

Makes continous references to efects of temperature on behavior patterns and outcomes. (Pertinent to 

life history strategies paper.)

Ward, H. B. 1939. Salmon psychology. Journal Washington Academy of Science 29: 1-14.

Abstract: Author's early studies were focused how far and in what way the activities of Pacific salmon 

in freshwater were determined or modified by external factors; and the correlation of external factors 

with environmental conditions and the life of fish. Discussion on stimuli/factors (stream current, 

water temperature, etc.) affecting migratory behavior of adult and juvenile sockeye salmon; notes 

racial differences in temperature tolerance (minimum, maximum and optimum) Mentions removal of 

perceived objectionable feature in Sulfur Creek that made the stream less turbid and colder that 

caused salmon to select another stream. This reference illustrates life history strategies and associated 

race/stocks.

Wilkes, Charles. 1856. Narrative of the United States expedition. During the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 
1841, 1842. By Charles Wilkes, USN. Commander of the expedition, member of the american 

philosphical society, etc. In five volumes, with thirteen maps. Vol IV. G.P. Putnam & Co., 321 

Broadway, New York. 1-4 (notes on work) p.

Abstract: Author provides an account of his experiences and observations during his travels in the 

Columbia river basin; notes habitat/landscapes, fauna, flora of various reach sections of the Columbia 

river and tributaries.

PRODUCTIVITY

Reference List

Anderson, George C. 1963. Columbia river effluent in the northeast Pacific ocean, 1961, 1962: selected 

aspects of phytoplankton distribution and production. Univ. of Washington, Dept. of Oceanogr., 

Tech. Rep. No. 96. 77 p.

Abstract: Author describes the distribution of chlorophyll a and phytoplankton productivity of the 

Washington and Oregon coasts, during 1961-1962, with respect to the surface waters in the area 

covered by the Columbia river effluent. Notes that these surface waters (Columbia river effluent area) 

generally contain more phytoplankton and had a higher rate of photosynthesis than ambient waters. 

Describes the rate of productivity and standing crop for phytoplankton on a seasonal basis. Reference 

contains figures illustrating hydrography of Columbia river effluent off the Washington-Oregon 

coast, nutrient chemistry, and seasonal distribution and annual production of chlorophyll a and 

primary production.

Dahm, C. N., Gregory, S. V., and Park, P. K. 1981. Organic carbon transport in the Columbia River. 

Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 13: 645-658.

Abstract: Authors discuss the monthly measurements of total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved 

organic carbon (DOC) in the Columbia river, based on sampling behind the Bonneville dam spillway 

and at Kalama, Washington (128 km above the mouth) during May 1973 - December 1974. They 

estimate total, dissolved and particulate organic carbon output from the Columbia river into the 

northeastern Pacific ocean. Discuss diel and monthly variations in TOC and DOC, and their

correlations with oxygen saturation and river discharge. Correlate particulate organic carbon (POC) 

with instream primary productivity per pH and oxygen saturation.

Ebel, W. J., Becker, C. D., Mullan, J. W., and Raymond, H. L. 1986. The Columbia River-Towards a 

holistic understanding. Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium, Can. Spec. Publ. 

Aquat. Sci 106: 205-219.

Abstract: Authors provide synopses of the Morphometry, Hydrology, Mainstem Flow Regimes, 

Sedimentation, Water Quality, Mainstem Temperatures, Productive Potential, Primary Production, 

Zooplankton, Secondary Production, General Productivity, Fish Species/Salmonid Resources & 

Fisheries of the Columbia River basin. They briefly discuss and provide a historical perspective of the

Regional Exploitation and Development of fisheries and water resources of the Columbia river, and 

associated fish problems and mitigation strategies. Also discuss Institutional Arrangements in the 

Columbia basin per federal legislation. Brief notes of sedimentation and sediment load in the 

Columbia river estuary and adjacent ocean waters- p. 208

Fleming, Richard H. 1955. Review of the oceanography of the northern Pacific. International North 

Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin No. 2. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, 

Vancouver, B.C. 1-43 (complete) p.

Abstract: Author provides comprehensive information regarding the northern Pacific Ocean in terms 

of (1) Characteristics of natural regions; (2) Description of area- bathymetry and bottom sediments; 
(3) Climatogy- winds, precipitation, sea ice, comparisons to Atlantic; (4) Water descriptions- surface 

temperatures & salinities, comparisons with Atlantic, vertical circulation, thickness of mixed layers, 

and distribution of phosphate; (5) Water movements, (6) Factors affecting productivity, (7) Longterm 

temperature trends; (8) State of knowledge, (9) Comprehensive bibliography, (10) Illustrative figures. 

Figure 20 illustrates the range of major oceanographic expeditions conducted in the northern Pacific 

Ocean- Challenger (1872-1876), Albatross (1882-1905), Shintoku Maru (1924, 1930-1933), 

International Fish Commission (1927, 1928, 1929), Bushell (August 19340 etc. Note: Excellent 

reference.

Jay, D. 1977. Columbia River estuarine nutrients, mixing, and water quality. Columbia River Estuary, 

inventory of physical, biological, and cultural characteristics Sect. 205-1 to 205-38.Columbia River 

Estuary Data Development Program, 

Abstract: Author presents an examination, information and illustrations of the seasonal and spatial 

characteristics for the physical, biological, chemical and cultural processes governing the 

concentrations of nutrients, dissolved oxygen, suspended particulate matter and pollutants in the 

Columbia river, its estuary, and the adjacent ocean waters. This presentation includes the following 

categories:

A. Chemical budgets of the Columbia river, in terms of (1) Sources of variability, (2) Limiting factors 

in primary productivity, and (3) Nutrient ratios and limiting factors; 

B. Mixing of water masses and the spatial distribution of nutrients and particular matter, in terms of 

(1) Water mass analysis, (2) Mixing processes at the mouth of the Columbia river, (3) Nutrient

distribution, transport and utilization, and (4) Cycling of particulate organic matter; and

C. Water quality, in terms of (1) Water quality management in Washington & Oregon, and (2) 

Municipal and industrial waste.

McKernan, D. L., Johnson, D. R., and Hodges, J. I. 1950. Some factors influencing the trends of salmon 

populations in Oregon. Transactions of the 15th North American Wildlife Conference, pages 427-

449 Also reprinted in Oregon Fish Comm. Contribution No. 12. 

Abstract: Authors present graphical representation of trend in chinook landings from 1866-1948; 

discuss factors affecting productivity of salmon stocks, using coho salmon as the subject.

Oregon State. 1951. Biennial report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the governor and

forty-sixth legislative assembly, 1951. Fish Commission of the State of Oregon; Salem, Oregon, 

State Printing Office, 1951. 

Abstract: Notes that (1) Fish commission has particular interest in the study of logging effects on 

salmon production, page 3. (2) On June 1948, the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and 

Federal Government (Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of Interior) consummated agreement of 

the provision of funds for the rehabilitation of the lower tributaries of the Columbia River, under the 

Lower Columbia River Salmon Rehabilitation Program, page 10. (3) A fishway is installed at a 

diversion dam (owned by the Vancouver Plywood Company) on Rock, a tributary of the North 

Santiam River, this reopened considerable area for steelhead spawning. page 12. (4) A new concrete 

fishway is constructed at the Powerdale Dam (owned by Pacific Power and Light Company) on the 

Hood River, page 13. (5) A fish screening and by-pass system is completed in the Marmot Dam 

Canal (Marmot Dam project, owned by Portland General Electric Company) on the Sandy River, 

page 13. (6) Columbia River investigations are studying five different problems; (a) extension of 

reduction in productivity of the Columbia River Basin by the encroachment of man, (b) harvest 

practices, stock timing/migration/distribution; (c) knowledge of growth and survival and limiting 

factors of young salmon in freshwater, (d) effect contemplated water development projects on 

Columbia River salmon, and (e) studies on sturgeon. page 15. (7) A need for the development of 

cheap and nutritional diets alternative to the liver based diets. page 18.
Rich, W. H. 1939. Local populations and migration in relation to the conservation of Pacific salmon in 

the western states and Alaska. Publication of the American Association of Advanced Science No. 8: 

45. Migration and Conservation of Salmon. 

Abstract: Author references characteristics of Columbia River stocks, research activities, factors 

affecting productivity.

Rich, W. H. 1940. The future of the Columbia River salmon fisheries. Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin 

2(2): 37-47 Also reprinted in Oregon Fish Comm. Contribution No. 6.

Abstract: Synopsis of Columbia salmon stocks, status, limiting factors to productivity, and future.

Ruggles, C. P. 1959. Salmon populations and bottom fauna in the Wenatchee River, Washington. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 88(3): 186-190.

Abstract: Author reports on productivity of bottom fauna in Wenatchee River and its tributary Nason 

Creek. Notes that fish population in Wenatchee has increased 7 fold since 1939.

RUN SIZE

Reference List

Bell, M. C. 1954. Salmon fisheries versus power development. World Fishing 3(11): 392-396, 421-422 

(November 1954).

Abstract: Author provides a short synopsis of the Columbia River basin and its conflict between water 

users (dams and irrigation) and salmon fisheries resources; notes data regarding some Columbia River 

dam projects, number fish screen projects, and sockeye run size.
APPENDIX K-1

METHODS USED TO ANALYZE KEY ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS AND 

FUNCTIONAL REDUNDANCY OF WILDLIFE SPECIES.

This appendix describes the methods used to analyze key ecological functions (KEFs) and 

functional redundancy of wildlife species. At the time of this analysis, databases on habitats and 

KEFs of fish species were not yet developed but could be included in such analyses later.

INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

The analyses were conducted at the resolution of subwatersheds (6-HUC or hydrologic unit code 

level) and then summarized to the broader areas of provinces and the Columbia River Basin.

“Key ecological functions” refers to a classification of the major ecological roles played by each 

wildlife species (Marcot and Vander Heyden 2001), as coded in the Washington-Oregon Species 

Habitat Project (SHP) database (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). “Functional redundancy” refers to 

the number of wildlife species coded as sharing the same categories of KEFs (Brown 1995).

This analysis provides a basis for determining the potential array of KEFs present in a wildlife 

habitat, how those KEFs can change over time historically or under management alternatives, 

and how patterns of KEFs can vary geographically among wildlife habitats. The ecological basis 

for the analysis of functional redundancy is in the presumption that KEFs with higher levels of 

functional redundancy can be more resilient or resistant to changes in the environment (Jaksic et 

al. 1996), and that, overall, systems with greater average functional redundancy will be more 

diverse and functionally stable over time (Naeem 1998, Rastetter et al. 1999, Walker 1992, 

MacNally 1995, Peterson et al. 1998). Such assertions have not been well studied for the 

wildlife communities of the Columbia River Basin, so analyses of KEFs and functional 

redundancy should be taken as testable, working hypotheses of effects on ecosystem diversity, 

productivity, and resilience.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Methods are presented here using an example subwatershed to illustrate the procedure. The 

example subwatershed is 6-HUC 170601040901, located in the Upper Grande Ronde subbasin 

(4-HUC), in the Blue Mountains Province. 

Step 1. Map wildlife habitats and calculate area and proportion within the subwatershed.

Northwest Habitat Institute produced GIS maps and data tables that display the types and areas 

of wildlife habitats for this subwatershed at historic and current time periods (Fig. K1, Table 

K1). (Wildlife habitat was also mapped at future time periods under management alternatives, 

but for purpose of this example we discuss only historic and current; analyses are the same.) 
Data on acres of each wildlife habitat type for each time period was converted to proportions 

(Table K1); these will become the weighting factors for functional redundancy values.

Step 2. Determine functional redundancy by wildlife habitat.

In this step, the SHP database is queried to first list all wildlife species associated with each of 

the wildlife habitats that occur in the subwatershed, at each time period. The query is then linked 

to their KEFs so that a list of all KEF categories for all species in each wildlife habitat is 

produced. Next, the number of wildlife species is counted for each KEF category, in each 

wildlife habitat. This is a measure of functional redundancy for each KEF category, for each 

wildlife habitat. In practice, all this can be done simply in a single relational database query.

Two minor twists to this procedure were necessary for this specific subwatershed. (1) The 

wildlife habitat type “regenerating forests” is an additional habitat type created for these maps 

that does not appear in the original SHP list of wildlife habitats. Regenerating forests pertains to 

early successional stages resulting strictly from timber harvesting (mostly clearcutting) of what 

would otherwise be mapped as forested habitats. For this example, we cross-indexed the specific 

SHP wildlife habitat type represented by the “regenerating forest” category, with SHP structural 

condition classes representing early, post-harvest successional stages. (2) This subwatershed 

contains the “agriculture” wildlife habitat type. The SHP database codes for wildlife species 

associated with the agriculture wildlife habitat type presume the occurrence of many other native 

wildlife habitats adjacent to, or included within, the agricultural type. We felt this greatly 

overstated the wildlife species richness associated purely with agricultural conditions, so we 

narrowed the query of wildlife species associated with agriculture by specifying the specific 

structural conditions of agriculture found in this particular subwatershed, that is, “unimproved 

pasture” and “improved pasture.” In addition, we included wildlife species only if they were 

“closely associated” with the agriculture type. This narrowed the field from 342 wildlife species 

to just over a hundred, which is far more reasonable given other experience in the interior 

Columbia River Basin.

With these minor tweaks, we listed the number of wildlife species associated with each KEF 

category, for each wildlife habitat type (Table K2). 

Step 3. Account for proportion of wildlife habitats within the subwatershed.

This does not complete the process, because the amounts and proportions of each wildlife habitat 

type differ among types and over the time periods. To account for this, we then multiplied the 

(uncorrected, raw) values of functional redundancy for each KEF category for each pertinent 

wildlife habitat type (Table K2), by the percent of each wildlife habitat type in the subwatershed 

(Table K1), keeping these products separate for historic and current time periods. We called 

these products “weighted redundancy values.” This is an interim step only and does not have 

any specific ecological meaning.

For example, the raw functional redundancy value for KEF category 1.1.1 (the key ecological 

function category “Primary consumer”) in the Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest wildlife habitat 

type, is 121 wildlife species (Table K2). The historic proportion of this wildlife habitat type in 
the example subwatershed is 0.058 (Table K1). Multiplying these values gives 121 x 0.058 = 

7.1. This is the weighted redundancy value for this wildlife habitat type in this subwatershed, for 

this particular time period. Such calculations were done for all other wildlife habitat types in this 

subwatershed, and then carried into the next step.

We next summed the weighted redundancy values across all wildlife habitat types for each KEF 

category, again separately for historic and current conditions. This resulted in what we called the 

“summed weighted redundancy values across all habitats” within the subwatershed for historic 

and current time periods, for each category KEF. This is the final result of functional 

redundancy for each KEF category across all wildlife habitats within a subwatershed.

Following the above calculation example, the summed weighted redundancy values for KEF 

category 1.1.1 in the example watershed was 101 for the historic time period and 97 for the 

current time period. These values are the area-averaged number of wildlife species associated 

with this KEF category, across all wildlife habitats present in this watershed at each time period.

Using another example, KEF 3.6.3 (the key ecological function category of “creates aquatic 

structures potentially used by other species”) had summed weighted redundancy values across all 

wildlife habitats of 0.2 for the historic period and 2.9 for the current period. The value increased 

from historic to current periods because this particular KEF is associated with open water and 

herbaceous wetlands, which were introduced, created, or at least newly mapped since historic 

times (according to the NHI database for this HUC; however, there may also be a mapping 

resolution or representation problem of not correctly showing open water and herbaceous 

wetland types under historic conditions, but this was not a problem for most terrestrial, upland 

wildlife habitat types). 

Further, we calculated the rate of change of the summed weighted redundancy values between 

time periods. For historic and current periods, this is calculated as [(current - historic)/historic]. 

For example, for KEF 3.6.3, the change from 0.2 to 2.9 was calculated as (2.9-0.2)/0.2 = 13.5. 

This means that the summed weighted functional redundancy for KEF 3.6.3 increased by a factor 

of 13.5 (or 1,350 %) from historic to current conditions. In contrast, KEF 1.1.1 changed by (97-

101)/101 = -0.04, that is, decreased by a factor of 0.04 (or 4 percent). Comparing time periods in 

this way aided identifying which KEFs increased or decreased the most.

We also averaged the summed weighted functional redundancy values, across all KEF

categories, by adding the values across KEF categories and dividing by the number of KEF 

categories. This provided a value representing the mean functional redundancy (number of 

wildlife species) across all KEF categories and wildlife habitat types, for each time period. In 

the example watershed, mean redundancy values were 22.2 wildlife species for the historic time 

period and 20.6 for the current. The value decreased, but probably not significantly so. Such 

mean functional redundancy values do not reveal which KEFs changed, however, so one would 

also want to inspect the KEF category-specific values and changes. Similar mean functional 

redundancy values compared across time periods or subwatersheds may still result for major 

shifts in KEF-specific values. Still, mean functional redundancy values may be useful to track 

when values vary substantially. 

Step 4. Graph and summarize results.
We then created a series of graphs showing, variously, (a) changes in the wildlife habitats for this 

subwatershed (Figs. K2, K3), and (b) changes in the summed weighted functional redundancy 

values by KEF category (Figs. K4a, K4b), as well as (c) changes in functional richness (the 

total number of KEF categories present) and mean functional redundancy (weighted functional 

redundancy averaged over all KEF categories), for historic and current periods (Fig. K5). 

Step 5. Tally across provinces and basin

The final step entailed summarizing results across all subwatersheds with a broader area, such as 

province and the entire Columbia River Basin. Graphs of such tallies depict the number of 

subwatersheds in which the temporal changes in the summed weighted functional redundancy 

values increased, decreased, or remained the same. 

GIS maps of such changes were particularly useful for quickly identifying geographic areas with 

consistent and salient changes in KEF redundancy across time periods. For instance, results for 

the example subwatershed suggest a decline in functional redundancy of KEF 5.1, the key 

ecological function category of “potentially improving soil structure and aeration by digging” 

(Fig. K4b). But where, geographically, have such declines occurred? Mapping subwatershedspecific changes (Fig. K6) clearly shows major areas of decline of this function, namely 

Willamette Valley, Columbia Basin, and Snake River Basin (the example subwatershed in the 

Blue Mountains also shows up as having a major decline in this function). Such maps can be 

produced to compare other time periods (e.g., historic to future, or current to future), to compare 

outcomes of management alternatives at a given time period, or to compare changes in total 

functional diversity or mean functional richness. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

For the example subwatershed explored here, there are indeed changes from historic to current 

time periods in the specific KEF categories. However, at the broad geographic scope of the 

entire Columbia River Basin, total functional richness and mean functional redundancy (Fig. K5) 

seem resilient to changes in wildlife habitats. This not unexpected when values are averaged 

across all wildlife habitats and KEF categories. 

However, this example linked wildlife species (and their KEFs) only to presence of the broad 

wildlife habitat types, and ignored the presence and influence of specific structural conditions of 

each widlife habitat, as well as specific key environmental correlates (the specific substrates and 

habitat elements) occurring within the wildlife habitats. Many of the KEF parameters explored 

here may be far more sensitive when all these factors are accounted for in the calculation steps 

presented here. 

CAVEATS AND CONFERENCES

Some caveats and cautions need to be highlighted for this kind of analysis (also see Marcot and 
Vander Heyden 2001). For example:

- KEF changes are scale-sensitive and -specific, being more robust and less sensitive the larger 

the area is considered (HUCs, provinces)

- The changes displayed in this example do not account for vegetation structural conditions 

(except for regenerating forest and agricultural land) and for specific key environmental 

correlates. Accounting for these conditions may greatly affect KEF analysis results, that is, the 

KEF categories, redundancy levels, functional richness, mean functional redundancy, mapped 

outcomes, and changes between time periods, may all become more sensitive.

- Because such habitat factors were not considered here, the calculated levels of functional 

redundancy in the example presented may seem misleadingly similar between historic and 

current periods. It may be more ecologically meaningful to stress the percent change across time 

periods (e.g., Figs. K4a, K4b).

SUMMARY

- “(Key) ecological functions” refers to the set of ecological roles played by (fish and) wildlife in 

their ecosystems. Such roles can influence the capacity of the ecosystem to support other species 

and are important new ways of tracking effects of land planning.

- Our analysis method can aptly display the trends in ecological functions across time periods, 

such as historic to current, and current to future under planning alternatives. 

- The trends are shown as levels of “functional redundancy” which is the average number of 

wildlife species playing each functional role. 

- Higher redundancy may mean more resilient and robust ecosystems. 

- In general, ecosystems that have “all their marbles” – that is, with all the original ecological 

functions still present -- can be said to be “fully functional.” Our analyses can help trace the 

degree to which ecosystems remain fully functional under each alternative. 

- The example analysis presented in this appendix can be conducted at the subbasin (or other) 

scale. It is more meaningful to include structural conditions of wildlife habitats, as well as key 

environmental correlates, with the analyses.

- For the example subwatershed analyzed in this appendix, here are some sample ecological 

interpretations of results of such an analysis:

o This subwatershed has gained significant amounts of agricultural (pastureland) area, 

Pondersoa pine forest, and herbaceous wetland habitats, and has lost most of its shrub-steppe and 

all of its regenerating forest habitats, from historic to current times.

o Overall, this subwatershed has remained fully functional when averaged across all its 

habitats, although specific locations have drastically changed in wildlife habitat, associated 
wildlife species, and their associated ecological functions, within the subwatershed (such as 

within specific vegetation stands).

o Some of the ecological functions (examples only) of wildlife that have significantly 

increase since historic times are primary cavity excavation, secondary cavity use, fragmentation 

of standing wood, impounding of water, and creation of snags. These changes would favor 

species oriented around snags and tree cavities (e.g., small owls, swallows), down wood (some 

lizards, snakes), and water and wetlands (some waterfowl, amphibians).

o Some of the ecological functions of wildlife that have significantly declined since 

historic times are terrestrial burrow and runway excavation, soil turnover and aeration, and 

grazing alteration of vegetation structure. These changes would disfavor species oriented around 

terrestrial burrow use (e.g., some small mammals, lizards, others) and early successional shrub 

vegetation structures (some buntings, sparrows, flycatchers, and others), and may not provide as 

productive a soil ecosystem as occurred historically. 

o It is possible, and easy, to determine which KEF categories have suffered declines, and 

the associated wildlife species, and thus the wildlife habitats, structural conditions, and key 

environmental correlates (specific habitat elements and substrates) that would be useful to 

highlight in a conservation or restoration program, if the objective is to provide for “fully 

functional” wildlife communities and ecosystems.

- And, finally, it is entirely feasible to integrate habitats and KEFs of fish into such analyses.

LITERATURE CITED

Brown, J. H. 1995. Macroecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL. 269 pp. 

Jaksic, F. M., P. Feinsinger, and J. E. Jimenez. 1996. Ecological redundancy and long-term dynamics of 

vertebrate predators in semiarid Chile. Cons. Biol. 10(1):252-262. 

Johnson, D., and T. O'Neil, eds. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis OR. 

MacNally, R. C. 1995. Ecological versatility and community ecology. Cambridge University Press, New 

York, NY. 453 pp. 

Marcot, B. G., and M. Vander Heyden. 2001. Key ecological functions of wildlife species. Pp. 168-186 in: 

D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, eds. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis OR. 

Naeem, S. 1998. Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability. Cons. Biol. 12(1):39-45. 

Peterson, G., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. 

Ecosystems 1:6-18. 

Rastetter, E. B., L. Gough, A. E. Hartley, D. A. Herbert, K. J. Nadelhoffer, and M. Williams. 1999. A 

revised assessment of species redundancy and ecosystem reliability. Cons. Biol. 13(2):440-443. 

Walker, B. H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Cons. Biol. 6:18-23. 
Appendix K-2

Figure Captions

Fig K1. Historic and current distribution of wildlife habitats within an example subwatershed (6-

HUC 170601040901) located in the Upper Grande Ronde subbasin, Blue Mountains province, in 

northeastern Oregon. Note the major change from shrub-steppe to agriculture and Ponderosa 

pine forest. Such change is typical for much of the interior Columbia Basin. 

Fig. K2. Changes in area of wildlife habitats for the example subwatershed shown in Figure K1, 

from historic to current time periods. Note great decreases in shrub-steppe and increases in 

agriculture and Ponderosa pine forest types. 

Fig. K3. Changes in area, highlighting differences in overall proportion, of wildlife habitats for 

the example subwatershed shown in Figure K1, from historic to current time periods. Although 

the information in this figure is redundant with that presented in Figure K2 and Table K1, it 

helps emphasize the proportional changes in wildlife habitats.

Figs. K4a, K4b. Changes in functional redundancy (summed weighted values as described in the 

Appendix K text) for selected categories of key ecological functions (KEFs), for the example 

subwatershed, comparing historic to current time periods. Note the great increase in functional 

redundancy (mean number of wildlife species across all wildlife habitats) of the KEF categories 

of primary cavity excavation, secondary cavity use, and creating snags. These increased because 

of the increase in Ponderosa pine forest within this subwatershed (Figs. K1, K2, K3), with which 

the wildlife species bearing these KEF categories are associated. Likewise, note the decline in 

other KEF categories borne by wildlife species associated with the shrub-steppe wildlife habitat, 

namely burrow excavation, burrow use, and potentially improving soil structure and aeration by 

digging. These KEFs declined because of the great decline in native shrub-steppe habitat within 

this subwatershed.

Fig. K5. Levels of functional richness and mean functional redundancy for the example 

watershed, at historic and current time periods. Note that values of these two parameters 

remained virtually unchanged, although redundancy levels of the specific categories of key 

ecological functions changed (Figs. K4a, K4b). This suggests that when these two parameters 

show little change, attention should still be placed on how redundancy of specific KEFs change.

Fig. K6. GIS map showing changes in (summed weighted) functional redundancy of KEF 

category 5.1, “potentially improving soil structure and aeration by digging,” comparing historic 

to current time periods. The map shows changes for each subwatershed, although it is best 

interpreted a broader scales, for instance, the major and consistent declines shown in the 

Willamette Valley, Columbia Basin, and Snake River Basin. Categories of changes are shaded 

by quartiles of subwatersheds with increases, decreases, or no change. For example, the greatest 

positive change represents the upper quartile (25% of all subwatersheds) with a positive change 

in functional redundancy values for this KEF; and this quartile represents an increase of 16.63% 

or greater in functional redundancy values. 







Table K-1. Acres of historic and current wildlife habitat in the example 

subwatershed (6-HUC 170601040901) located in the Upper Grande Ronde subbasin, 

Blue Mountains province, in northeastern Oregon.

WILDLIFE HABITAT Current 

acres 

Current 

proportio

n

Historic 

acres

Historic 

proportion

Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest 919 0.040 1,330 0.058

Ponderosa Pine and Eastside 

White Oak Forests and Woodlands

6,214 0.272 0 0.000

Eastside Grasslands 1,263 0.055 2,193 0.096

Shrub-steppe 2,188 0.096 16,750 0.734

Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed 

Environments

9,143 0.401 0 0.000

Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs, and 

Rivers

247 0.011 0 0.000

Herbaceous Wetlands 2,846 0.125 0 0.000

Regenerating Forest 0 0.000 2,547 0.112

TOTAL: 22,820 1.000 22,820 1.000
Table K-2. Number of wildlife species (functional redundancy) by categories of key ecological functions (KEFs), 

found in wildlife habitats occurring within the example subwatershed (6-HUC 170601040901) located in the Upper 

Grande Ronde subbasin, Blue Mountains province, in northeastern Oregon. Source of species-KEF relations: 

Washington-Oregon Species-Habitat Relations database (Johnson and O’Neil 2001).

WILDLIFE HABITAT TYPES \1

KEY ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION H5 H7 H15 H16 H19 H21 H22 H33

1.1.1 - Primary consumer 121 128 93 93 77 49 97 148 

1.1.1.1 - Foliovore 14 12 25 17 12 26 32 17 

1.1.1.2 - Spermivore 57 69 56 53 40 17 41 70 

1.1.1.3 - Browser 9 8 7 6 4 3 10 11 

1.1.1.4 - Grazer 24 19 21 21 15 9 26 29 

1.1.1.5 - Frugivore 54 64 35 30 27 2 25 67 

1.1.1.6 - Sap feeder 10 12 1 1 6 0 3 11 

1.1.1.7 - Root feeder 3 3 5 4 2 1 2 4 

1.1.1.8 - Nectivore 4 4 0 1 2 0 4 4 

1.1.1.9 - Fungivore 20 16 7 10 7 0 7 19 

1.1.1.10 - Flwr/bud 12 13 6 5 7 0 5 14 

1.1.1.11 - Aquatic herbiv. 10 10 19 11 10 39 37 13 

1.1.1.12 - Benthic substr. 7 6 7 7 3 10 10 8 

1.1.1.13 - Bark/camb./bole 5 4 1 1 2 1 5 5 

1.1.2 - Secondary consumer 189 206 148 152 114 169 201 227 

1.1.2.1 - Invertebrate eater 162 180 128 133 101 162 183 200 

1.1.2.1.1 - Terrest. inverts 159 177 121 130 94 116 148 195 

1.1.2.1.2 - Aquatic macroinv. 15 15 32 26 17 117 94 23 

1.1.2.1.3 - Zooplankton 4 4 2 3 2 6 4 5 

1.1.2.2 - Vertebrate eater 62 65 60 61 36 72 89 70 

1.1.2.2.1 - Piscivorous 8 9 10 12 6 52 44 10 

1.1.2.3 - Ovivorous 24 23 13 12 13 16 16 23 

1.1.3 - Tertiary consumer 7 7 6 5 2 2 6 7 

1.1.4 - Carrion feeder 18 18 17 16 8 10 17 21 

1.1.5 - Cannibalistic 4 2 3 2 1 4 2 4 

1.1.6 - Coprophagous 2 1 3 4 2 0 0 3 

1.1.7 - Human garbage/refuse 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 
1.1.7.1 

- Offal, bycatch 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

1.2.1 prey for 2,3 consumers 153 158 122 132 94 107 146 181 

2 - Nutrient cycling 21 22 20 21 9 43 37 26 

3.1 - Control insect pops 41 43 23 25 24 28 33 45 

3.2 - Contol vert pops 25 25 21 22 6 6 21 24 

3.3 - Pollination vector 4 4 1 2 2 1 3 4 

3.4 - Disperses seeds, etc. 69 71 55 53 36 53 79 77 

3.4.1 - Disperses fungi 9 7 2 3 3 0 3 9 

3.4.2 - Disperses lichens 8 4 0 0 1 0 3 6 

3.4.4 - Disperses inverts 3 2 15 10 3 48 50 2 

3.4.5 - Disperses seeds/fruits 61 66 40 45 33 4 24 69 

3.4.6 - Disperses vasc. plants 4 3 12 6 3 47 49 3 

3.5.1 - Creates feed. opportn. 7 6 2 1 2 1 2 7 

3.5.1.1 - Creates sapwells 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 

3.5.2 - Creates roost/den/nest 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 

3.6.1 - Creates aer. struct. 13 14 9 12 3 10 17 11 

3.6.2 - Creates grnd. struct. 4 4 0 2 2 2 4 3 

3.6.3 - Creates aquat. struct. 1 1 0 0 2 13 13 1 

3.7.1 - Uses aer. struct. 9 8 3 3 2 1 4 8 

3.7.2 - Uses grnd. struct. 4 5 4 3 4 0 2 6 

3.7.3 - Uses aquat. struct. 2 2 1 1 3 5 5 1 

3.8.1 - Intersp. nest parasite 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 

3.8.2 - Intersp. host 26 33 7 11 18 2 11 32 

3.9 - Primary cavity excavator 12 14 1 2 8 0 1 15 

3.10 - Secondary cavity user 26 26 8 9 12 10 17 25 

3.11 - Primary burrow excavator 39 29 28 33 24 6 20 38 

3.11.1 - Creates large burrows 12 9 9 9 9 4 8 12 

3.11.2 - Creates small burrows 27 20 19 24 15 2 12 26 
3.12 - Secondary burrow user 42 35 37 44 25 10 25 45 

3.13 - Creates runways 22 16 14 16 14 4 19 26 

3.14 - Uses created runways 28 25 20 20 13 4 21 29 

3.15 - Pirates food 3 3 2 3 0 12 9 3 

3.16 - Intersp. hybrid. 17 16 5 5 5 3 9 18 

5.1 - Improves soil struc., aern. 25 30 29 42 20 9 12 34 

5.2 - Degrades soil struc., aern. 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 

6.1 - Fragments down wood 10 8 6 7 5 0 11 10 

6.2 - Fragments standing wood 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 

7.1 - Impounds water 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 

7.2 - Creates ponds/wetlands 3 3 2 3 3 1 5 4 

8.1 - Creates snags 3 3 1 1 2 2 4 3 

8.2 - Browsing alters vegn struct 7 6 4 4 4 1 6 9 

8.3 - Grazing alters vegn struct 5 4 5 6 3 1 8 6 

\1 Wildlife habitat types: 

H5 = Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest

H7 = Ponderosa Pine and Eastside White Oak Forests and Woodlands

H15 = Eastside Grasslands

H16 = Shrub-steppe

H19 = Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environments

H21 = Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs, and Rivers

H22 = Herbaceous Wetlands

H33 = Regenerating Forest
Appendix L

Screening Procedure for Estimating the Wildlife-Habitat Types for each Alternative.

A screening procedure was developed to estimate the acres of wildlife-habitat types 

resulting from seven alternatives considered by the Multi-Species Framework Project. 

This procedure estimated the degree that current wildlife-habitat types would shift back 

towards the historic wildlife-habitat types for a specific alternative. Each alternative was 

composed of a set of strategies. The effectiveness and intensity of each strategy, as 

defined in the section on Methods-Fish, were considered in combination with the land use 

and land ownership for each 6-HUC. Changes in the aquatic habitat were estimated in a 

similar but independent procedure. 

The Multi-Species Framework Alternatives working group specified the intensity 

(expressed in fuzzy terms as low, medium, high) of a specific strategy (e.g. remove 

logging roads) for a specific land use and land ownership (e.g. Federal forest lands). 

Intensities were allowed to vary between provinces. This resulted in 11,536 rules 

combined.

The Northwest Habitat Institute provided the fraction of wildlife-habitat types in each 6-

HUC composed of each of 27 (non-marine) different wildlife-habitat types for current 

and historic (circa 1850) conditions (see Methods-Wildlife). Each of the wildlife-habitat 

types was associated with one of six land use groupings (forest, range, wetland, water, 

agricultural, or urban). StreamNet provided, for each 6-HUC, the fraction of area in each 

land use/land ownership (federal, state, city/county, tribal, or private) group. 

Spatial information was not considered at a spatial scale finer than the 6-HUC . This 

approach was consistent with other elements of the Multi-Species Framework Project. It 

implies that no information about adjacency of habitat types and land ownership is 

known. For instance, we don’t know if forest represents riparian or non-riparian regions. 

Such information was beyond the initial basin and province levels of assessment of the 

Multi-Species Framework Project. 

Each of the strategies considered was assumed to result in some shift of the current 

wildlife-habitat type back to the historic wildlife-habitat type. Continued shifting of 

habitat away from historical conditions was not considered. Each of the 98 strategies 

available results in either no or some positive shift in habitat towards historic conditions. 

The shift from various strategies within an alternative was assumed to superimpose. The 

shifts associated with each strategy are estimated independently for each alternative, each 

6-HUC, and each land use group. The impacts of the three largest shifts were considered 

to superimpose onto the residual fraction only. Therefore, if the largest three shifts were 

50%, 40%, and 30% the combined shift would be 0.5 + (1-0.5)*0.4 +{1 – (0.5 + (1-
0.5)*0.4)}*0.3 = 79%. This procedure ensures that the shift will never exceed 100% and 

is consistent with a diminishing return on similar strategies.

The magnitude of an individual shift, before superimposing it into an aggregate shift for 

an alternative, is estimated from the effectiveness and intensity specified for the strategy. 

The intensity values were specified by the Multi-Species Framework Alternatives 

working group for each land ownership and land use group for each strategy and each 

alternative and each province using values of 0, 1, 2, and 3. The effectiveness values 

were also developed by Multi-Species Framework Alternatives working group and were 

expressed using values of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. In both cases, the larger values signified a 

greater impact. Effectiveness and intensity values were combined into shift values as 

shown in Table 1. The intensity values for various land use and land ownership groups 

were area weighted for each 6-HUC by the fraction of the total acreage in the respective 

land use group. The resulting area-weighted aggregate intensity values were combined 

with the effectiveness values designated for the strategy and the result shift for each land

use group was interpolated from Table 1 using a 2-dimensional linear interpolation 

scheme. 

The resultant shifts were applied to remap the current wildlife-habitat type towards the 

historic habitat-wildlife type. A shift value of 1 would reproduce the historic pattern of 

wildlife-habitat type and a shift value of 0 would maintain the pattern of current wildlifehabitat type. 

The procedure was implemented in MicrosoftTMExcelTM using macros, and this model 

can be obtained from the senior author of this Appendix. The procedure was 

implemented in ExcelTM because the initial rule database was implemented in ExcelTM 

and it was a common method for communicating information within the Multi-Species 

Framework Project team. Several macros were used to automate the computational 

process. The file is 30 MB in size and requires MicrosoftTM ExcelTM 2000 to run. 

MicrosoftTM ExcelTM while common to many users is not a very efficient way to perform 

the computations, so the computations can take several hours to complete.

The acres of wildlife-habitat types estimated using the screening procedure are used to 

assess wildlife species-specific performance and terrestrial ecosystem function. The 

results of this screening procedure are contained in a very large spreadsheet (30 

megabytes) that is available from the Power Planning Council upon request. Data in this 

spreadsheet are summarized and analyzed in the wildlife sections of the report for the 

Multi-Species Framework Project. Analyses include changes of selected wildlife-habitat 

types, habitat condition for selected species, and ecosystem function. The screen 

procedure presented in this report may be useful for subbasin managers to assess the 

consequences of proposed management actions on fish and wildlife.
Intensity

Effectiveness 0 1 2 3

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0.56 0.63 0.7

2 0 0.64 0.72 0.8

3 0 0.72 0.81 0.9

4 0 0.8 0.9 1

Table 1. Tabular Function of Shifts. Intensity and effectiveness were integrated for each 

strategy (i.e., cell).