Characterization and

Assessment of Economic

Systems in the Interior

Columbia Basin: Fisheries

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

United States

Department of the

Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-451

April 2000

David L. Fluharty
Author

David L. Fluharty is research associate professor, School of Marine Affairs, College of

Ocean and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.

Report submitted in fulfillment of contract 40-0E00-4-9082 for the USDA Eastside

Ecosystems Management Strategy Project.
Characterization and Assessment of

Economic Systems in the Interior Columbia

Basin: Fisheries

David L. Fluharty

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: Scientific Assessment

Thomas M. Quigley, Editor

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-451

April 2000
Abstract

Fluharty, David L. 2000. Characterization and assessment of economic systems in the

interior Columbia basin: fisheries. G en. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-451. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 114 p.

(Quigle y, Thomas M., ed.; I nterior Columbia B asin Ecosystem M anagement P roject:

scientific assessment).

Economic v alue of commer cial, r ecreational, and tribal fishing is one measur e of the

impor tance of fisheries in the interior Columbia Riv er basin (the basin) but only par t of

the values associated with fish of that region. The basin historically has provided substantial

intrar egional anadr omous stock fisheries and contributes to interr egional fisheries along the

entire west coast of the U nited States and C anada. H arvest management, constr uction of

dams and irrigation facilities, changes in habitat, and other factors hav e led to significant

declines in some stocks of fish, ther eby diminishing their economic impor tance to the

region. R esident fish like tr out, sturgeon, sucker , lampr ey, whitefish, and other species ar e

harvested in tribal and r ecreational fisheries. With the ex ception of sturgeon, these species

do not suppor t significant commer cial fisheries. I ntroduced species of many war m water

recreational fish, like the walle ye, have brought additional changes to the ecosystem of the

basin and affect economic v alues of fishing.

Future economic and societal v alues of fisheries can be expected to incr ease because of

major ongoing effor ts to recover stocks of anadr omous salmon; ho wever, the magnitude

and timing of recovery are uncertain. Increasing human populations in the basin along with

steady or incr eased demand for r ecreational fishing will continue to raise the v alue of both

native and intr oduced species. This will make food and r ecreational fisheries enhancement

through ar tificial pr opagation mor e likely , but at the same time, raise the demand for

protection of wild stocks and conser vation-oriented management to pr oduce lo w envir onmental impact and high-quality fisheries. S hifts in social pr eferences may bring demands

for commercial and recreational allocation adjustments, which can greatly impact economic

valuation of fisheries. G lobal climate change, inter mittent dr ought, and inter decadal shifts

in ocean conditions pr ovide additional complexity and uncer tainty that affect fish v alues.

Keywords: Fish, economics, nativ e fish, r esident fish, anadr omous fish, r ecreation, tribal,

warm water fish, cold water fish, I daho, Montana, O regon, Washington, Wyoming,

Columbia Riv er, Snake Riv er.
Preface

The Interior Columbia B asin E cosystem M anagement P roject was initiated b y the Forest

Service and the B ureau of Land M anagement to r espond to sev eral critical issues including,

but not limited to, for est and rangeland health, anadr omous fish concer ns, terr estrial

species viability concer ns, and the r ecent decline in traditional commodity flo ws. The

charter giv en to the pr oject was to dev elop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy

for managing the lands of the interior Columbia Riv er basin administer ed by the Forest

Service and the B ureau of Land M anagement. The Science I ntegration Team was organiz ed

to develop a framewor k for ecosystem management, an assessment of the socioeconomic

and biophysical systems in the basin, and an ev aluation of alter native management strategies. This paper is one in a series of papers dev eloped as backgr ound material for the framework, assessment, or ev aluation of alter natives. It provides mor e detail than was possible to

disclose dir ectly in the primar y documents.

The Science I ntegration Team, although organiz ed functionally , worked har d at integrating

the appr oaches, analyses, and conclusions. I t is the collectiv e effor t of team members that

provides depth and understanding to the wor k of the pr oject. The Science I ntegration

Team leadership included deputy team leaders R ussel Graham and S ylvia Arbelbide; landscape ecology–W endel Hann, Paul Hessburg, and M ark Jensen; aquatic–J im Sedell, K ris

Lee, Danny Lee, J ack Williams, and L ynn Decker; economic–Richar d Haynes, Amy

Horne, and Nick Reyna; social science–J im Burchfield, S teve McCool, and J on Bumstead;

terrestrial–B ruce Marcot, Kurt Nelson, J ohn Lehmkuhl, Richar d Holthausen, and R andy

Hickenbottom; spatial analysis–Becky G ravenmier, John Steffenson, and Andy Wilson.

Thomas M. Q uigle y

Editor

Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem

Management P roject

United States United States

Depar tment of Department

Agricultur e of the I nterior

Forest Service Bureau of Land

Management
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Terms of Reference

1 Organization of the S tudy

2 Context of the S tudy

3 Geographic Scope

4 Fish Fauna of the B asin

4 Approach to Economic Assessment

5 Theoretical Considerations

5 Empirical Considerations

7 Precommercial Fisheries to 1860

14 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries, 1860 to 1980

14 Native American F isheries

15 Commercial Fisheries

18 Recreational F isheries

19 Change in Conditions for F ishing

25 Valuation of Contemporary Fisheries, 1980 to Present

26 Treaty Fisheries—Commer cial

28 Commercial Fisheries

31 Recreational F isheries

41 Other Fish Valuation Issues

46 Future Fish Values in the Basin

52 Conclusion

52 Acknowledgments

53 Literature Cited
65 Appendix A

69 Appendix B

71 Appendix C

73 Appendix D

88 Appendix E

94 Appendix F

97 Appendix G

99 Appendix H

103 Appendix I

105 Appendix J

106 Appendix K

107 Appendix L

1

Introduction

Despite the many problems presented to users and

managers by declines, extinctions, and introductions of new species, fish have been supporting

and continue to support commercial, recreational,

and tribal fisheries throughout the interior Columbia

River basin (the basin).1

 Enormous shifts have

occurred in the region in terms of the location of

fisheries and in their allocation through time as well

as the conditions under which they are pursued.

Terms of Reference

The Eastside Ecosystem Management Strategy

project is chartered by the Chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the

Director of the U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to develop a

scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for

the basin in conjunction with other Federal, state,

and tribal entities (USDA and USDI 1994a).

This study was contracted to examine economic

values of fisheries in the basin (and south-central

Oregon) with a focus on tribal, commercial, and

recreational fisheries for anadromous, cold water,

and warm water species. It is part of a series of

economic studies covering major economic activities

in the region including grazing, mining, timber, and

recreation for the period 1800 to the present. To

the extent feasible, factors influencing the future

of fisheries are identified and projections made.

The study summarizes existing information only;

no original survey research is undertaken.

This study fills a major gap in fisheries literature

by synthesizing historical and current data from

various sources for the basin. In the literature,

most research has focused on native salmon and

trout species, with limited focus on reservoir

fisheries, and the least focus on warm water

species.2

 This bias is largely based on preferences

of users and managers. This study is viewed as a

first stage in the examination of the economics of

fisheries in the basin from an ecosystem perspective. Sufficient information has been obtained to

assist in the development of an ecosystem-based

strategy for the basin.

Organization of the Study

This assessment of the economic significance of

fish in the basin focuses on three periods. The

first begins in about 1800—before extensive

contact between Native Americans and the predominately European explorers, fur traders, and

settlers. The second period begins when settlers

began large-scale fishing and commercial canning

of salmon in the 1860s and ends about 1980 with

anadromous species in severe decline. The third

period, and chief focus for analysis, begins in the

early 1980s when serious concerns about the status

of salmon stocks and other wildlife received increased priority, and basin-scale plans were developed to improve the situation. Throughout each

period, many species of fish (besides anadromous

species) in the basin lakes, streams, and rivers

provided commercial sustenance and sport for a

burgeoning regional population and provided part

of the attraction and enjoyment for visitors.

Other fisheries valuation issues are discussed, such

as cost of illegal fishing, compensation to Native

Americans for loss of access to fishing, and other

factors. The study concludes with economic

reasoning about fisheries in the basin over the

foreseeable future.

1The area covered by this study includes Oregon and Washington east of the Cascade crest, Idaho, and parts of Montana,

Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah consistent with the definition in

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eastside Ecosystem

Assessment Strategy project.

2 Native species are those indigenous to the basin. They are

considered resident if their entire life cycles occur within the

basin. Anadromous species, like salmon, spawn and rear in

the basin but spend most of their lives at sea before returning

to spawn. Over time, a number of nonnative species have

been introduced to the area and make up a significant portion

of the fish species in the basin. Many of these warm water

species such as pumpkinheads (or other common species)

occupy the relatively new aquatic ecosystems developed by

reservoirs and irrigation; however, some such as brown trout,

thrive in cool waters and compete with native species. Hatchery

reared fish are another category of species that may be genetically native but differ in terms of their interactions in the

ecosystem.
2

In the precontact and early contact period between

Native Americans and Europeans, fish was a major

source of protein and calories for Native Americans

and also was revered in their cultures. Native

Americans existed for thousands of years in a

respectful dependence on fisheries of the basin

(Hunn 1990). Fish products, particularly salmon,

were traded among tribes and served as barter in

exchanges with tribes outside the basin in years of

surplus. Trade in fish was established at an early

date between the tribes and the new settlers.

Small-scale subsistence fish catching by settlers

also occurred.

During commercialization and expansion of the

fisheries, the early settlers rapidly built their

fisheries to the point that as early as 1884, concerns were being expressed about exploitation

of the previously abundant runs (Smith 1979).

Severe declines in Native American populations

and their placement on reservations drastically

decreased their participation in fisheries despite

continued subsistence and traditional fishing and

some harvesting for commercial sale. State and

Federal Governments attempted to control fishing

and to enhance stocks of fish through hatchery

production and introduction of new species.

World War I and intervening economic conditions

put additional pressures on the stocks into the

1930s. Depression recovery measures and later

World War II transformation efforts brought

massive national public works programs to build

dams for generation of electricity, irrigation, flood

control, and navigation in the basin. The postWorld War II booming economy fueled continued

dam construction. It also brought the development of measures to compensate for the declines

in fish runs—mainly in the form of fish bypass

facilities and hatchery programs (see Barker 1994,

Cone 1995, Netboy 1980, Palmer 1991). Outdoor recreation expanded because of the burgeoning economy as well as the availability of cheap

transportation and increased leisure time. Abundant cold water and marine fisheries dominated

the recreational fisheries.

With establishment of the Northwest Power

Planning Act and the Northwest Power Planning

Council (NPPC) in the early 1980s, management

of the major anadromous fisheries shifted toward

making fish a higher priority in decisions relating

to operation of hydroelectric facilities and irrigation systems and in activities affecting fish habitat.

A series of court decisions, culminating in the

1979 Supreme Court Decision (United States v.

Oregon), settled long-standing disputes about

treaty fishing rights and provided the basis for

comanagement of mid-Columbia River fisheries.3

Despite the increased attention and improved

environment for management, salmon stocks in

the Columbia River generally have continued to

decline. Along with this decline, demographic

changes in the basin have resulted in increased

demand for recreational fisheries for salmon,

steelhead, and alternative recreational fisheries.

Warm water recreational fisheries, based almost

exclusively on introduced species, are attracting

considerable attention. Participation in recreational fisheries tended to increase along with

population growth and leisure until recently.

Absolute decline in fishing license sales has occurred in some states, and fishing as a percentage

of recreational activity also may have declined.

Context of the Study

Recent listing of spring-summer and fall chinook4

and sockeye salmon5 in the Snake River under

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the focus of

much present-day freshwater fisheries concern. It

illustrates the status of all salmonids in the basin.

3The Shoshoni-Bannock Tribes were not part of this settlement, and similar issues are still outstanding with respect to

tribal fisheries in the Snake River (see Barker 1993).

4 Scientific names of freshwater fish species are given in table

1, native fish species in appendix A, and introduced species in

appendix B, table 17.

5 On November 20, 1991, the U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service listed the sockeye as endangered, and

on April 22, 1992, it listed the chinook as threatened (U.S.

Department of Commerce 1991, 1992).
3

An unknown number of native anadromous stocks

are extinct already. Nehlsen and others (1991)

report that 76 anadromous salmon stocks in the

basin are of special concern, with 26 species at

high risk, 36 at moderate risk, and 14 at low risk

of extinction. More recently, Williams and others

(1992) assess that of 192 anadromous stocks

identified in the basin, 35 percent are extinct, 19

percent are at high risk of extinction, 7 percent are

at moderate risk of extinction, 13 percent are of

special concern, and 26 percent are considered

secure.

Populations of resident fish that contribute to

recreational fisheries as well as to ecosystem health

also are in serious decline. The bull trout (Hass

and McPhail 1991, Washington Department of

Wildlife [WDF] 1993) and the white sturgeon in

the Kootenai River (USDE 1994b) are but a few

prominent examples. Williams and others (1989)

report at least 29 fish species in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and the basin areas of Wyoming,

Montana, Nevada, and Utah to be of special

concern, threatened, or endangered according to

American Fisheries Society criteria. Most of these

species are chubs, trouts, and sculpins with relatively limited ranges. Hybridization with introduced species is the main concern for species like

native trouts (Bisson and others 1992).

In addition, introduced species like the walleye

now constitute commercial fisheries as well as new

predators in the basin ecosystem. Introduced

warm water species, in particular, have considerably altered the species composition and ecosystem

relations in aquatic environments (Li and others

1987). Massive changes in fish habitats, especially

the creation of extensive reservoirs and irrigation

facilities, have favored the spread of introduced

species and tended to cause conditions for native

species to deteriorate (Bisson and others 1992).

Preliminary assessments of habitat changes potentially affecting fish are being done (for example,

McIntosh and others 1994), but synoptic and

comprehensive analyses currently are not available.

Geographic Scope

Interior Columbia River basin—In this report,

the area defined as the interior Columbia River

basin by the Eastside Ecosystem Assessment

Strategy project includes nearly all of Oregon and

Washington east of the crest of the Cascade Range

and parts of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and

Nevada within the Snake River basin. A portion

of the Great Basin located in south-central Oregon

is not in the basin but lies east of the Cascade crest

and is included in this study; that is, the Northwest

Lakes (Houghton 1994). The Upper Klamath

River basin also is included in this report though

not part of the basin. Given the limited water

sources of Nevada (headwaters of the East and

South Forks of the Owyhee River and the Salmon

Falls River) and Utah (no major water bodies) that

drain into the basin, only a brief description of

these areas is provided in this paper. Similar treatment is accorded the upper Snake River basin

(Gros Ventre, Rocky Fork, Greys River, and Salt

River) located in Wyoming. These areas do not

correspond to state statistical areas for fisheries in a

way that allows convenient access for this study;

however, some studies provide a basis for description of fish values.

Lower Columbia River—The lower Columbia

River basin refers to the river and its tributaries

downstream of Bonneville Dam. This area is not

part of the east-side assessment area, but it is a key

harvest area for nontreaty and sport harvests (Fishery

Management zones 1-5 in appendix I, table 32)

with respect to anadromous fisheries that spawn

and rear in the basin.

Mid-Columbia River—Mid-Columbia River

designates the main stem of the Columbia

between Bonneville Dam and Chief Joseph

Dam—the modern limit of anadromy in the

Columbia River. The three reservoirs of the midColumbia (Bonneville, John Day, and The Dalles

Dams) below McNary Dam constitute zone 6 (see

appendix I, table 32), which is the principal treaty

fishing zone.
4

The upper Columbia River—This area extends

farther eastward and northward from Chief Joseph

Dam entering Canada with tributaries returning

to northern Idaho and western Montana.

The Columbia River system— The Columbia

River system refers to the entire Columbia River

basin area including the area that extends into

Canada.

Fish Fauna of the Basin

Fish fauna in the basin is diverse, consisting of about

90 native species (see appendix A) and about 30

established (that is, reproducing) introduced

species (see appendix B). Exclusive of the anadromous stocks mentioned above, at least 3 native

species are known to be extinct (Miller Lake lamprey,

Snake River sucker, and Alvord cutthroat trout),

and 29 other native species are considered by the

American Fisheries Society to be of special concern, threatened, or endangered (Williams and

others 1989). Only a few of either the native or

introduced species have commercial significance

in the basin, and most commercial species are

salmonids. About 20 percent of the native and

65 percent of the introduced species have significant value as sport fisheries. This is due not only

to size and other characteristics desired in targeted

recreational fish species, but also to the extremely

restricted distribution of some species and their

low abundance. A third of the native species are

known to have subsistence, religious or spiritual,

or trade values for Native Americans in the basin

(see below).

Bisson and others (1992) observe that most fisheries

science in the basin is oriented to salmon and trout,

given their importance in the region. There seem

to be no basinwide assessments of the abundance

of nonsalmonid native or introduced species. An

interagency specialist team has recently been formed

under the title "Inland Native Fish Strategy" as part

of an effort to develop long-term management of

habitat for the basin's native fish species. Still, it is

apparent from a biological or ecosystem perspective

that the native fish assemblages are severely compromised by introduced species as competition and

predation occurs between native and introduced

species.

Economically, these introduced species add to

the diversity of recreational opportunities available

but frequently do so at the cost of values associated

with native species. For various reasons, few longterm records exist of nonsalmonids—especially those

that lack commercial or recreational significance.

This lack of information about such species makes

assessing the economic value of fish in the basin

difficult. Thus, this report focuses on aggregate

levels of participation in fishing as an economic

activity and not on more sophisticated factors such

as species, size, type of fishing, and harvest success

rates.

Approach to Economic

Assessment

The purpose for economic valuation of environment-resource systems is to assist in making informed tradeoffs among various management

options. This study attempts to identify the economic values associated with fisheries in eastern

Oregon and Washington. Neither the benefits

and costs nor the economic impacts of any specified action are analyzed. This study provides an

understanding of fisheries values as a component

of the larger environment-resource assessment

under the east-side assessment aegis (see footnote

1) and requires examination of past, present, and

future fish values. As the assessment proceeds,

further economic analysis will be required relative

to impacts or effects of specific measures. This

study helps to provide a baseline.

One of the most difficult economic questions is

how to accurately portray the value of an asset, like

the salmon fishery, that has depreciated greatly

over time. Is its value properly represented by

current levels of harvest? Or, is it more appropriate to assume that it can recover in abundance to

some level approaching its former high abundance

and assign a value based on its potential? This

debate cannot be resolved in the context of this

study. The approach to valuation taken, however,

tends to focus on commercial and recreational

fishing values associated with current outputs with

the caveat that these values are only for certain

times. Various considerations influence how

values are assigned.
5

Theoretical Considerations

Economic valuation in the context of ecosystem

assessment is theoretically complex and empirically

difficult (Costanza and others 1993, Norton

1991). The requirement of developing an understanding of ecosystems forces economists to view

natural and environmental resources as systems

with multiple outputs and joint products. This

environmental and economic system can be seen

as generating four kinds of "service" flows to the

economy (Freeman 1993):

First, as in the conventional view of resource

economics, the resource-environment system

serves as a source of material inputs to the

economy such as fossil fuels, wood products,

minerals, water, and fish. Second, some components of the resource-environment system provide

life support services in the form of a breathable

atmosphere and a livable climatic regime. Third,

the resource-environment system provides various

amenities, including recreation, wildlife observation, scenic views, and perhaps services that are

not related to any direct use of the environment

(sometimes called nonuse or existence values).

Finally, this system disperses, transforms, and stores

the residuals that are generated as by-products of

economic activity.

Economic valuation of the fishery component of

the basin resource-environment system focuses on

the conventional resource economics and the

provision of amenities in the form of recreation

and not on more global issues. Analysis of the

resource-environment "life support" derived from

the environment-resource system in question goes

beyond the present task. Because of the strong

association of abundant stocks of anadromous fish

and recreational fishing with quality of life in the

Pacific Northwest, the nonuse and existence values

of fish in the basin take on considerable importance. The presence of many species of fish not

used by commercial and recreational fishers has

ecological significance. Furthermore, some of

these species have significant nonmarket values

for Native Americans in the basin. Even species

normally considered by anadromous aficionados as

introduced "trash fish" are gaining in popularity in

the recreation sector, and some produce commercial

value. Finally, no attempt is made in this report

to evaluate the residuals-management aspect for

basin fisheries despite its potential significance. It

is beyond the scope of this study.

Net economic value or total economic value

(Pearce 1993) is composed of user values (market

values with user costs subtracted and consumer

and producer surplus identified), option values,

and existence values. Huppert and Fight (1991)

review the conceptual basis for and measurement

of economic value relative to salmonid fisheries

and recreational fisheries for cold water species.

The basic concepts and measurement issues relate

equally well to recreational fisheries for warm

water species.

Empirical Considerations

Market value of commercially caught species of

fish can be obtained from harvest data and prices.

The more difficult problem comes with obtaining

reliable estimates of the fixed, variable, and opportunity costs of operating a fishing enterprise.

Because of the proprietary nature of these production data, they seldom are available for research

purposes in the United States. Rettig and McCarl

(1984) suggest using surrogate values of 50 or 90

percent of gross revenues to represent these costs

for fishing and processing. This assumes that

those fishing are acting rationally; that is, that they

do generate a producer surplus in the fishery over

a reasonable period, if not each year.6

6 Smith (1979) shows one example of a negative return on

investment. His discussion of Columbia River commercial

fishing entities as professional, part-time, and sport-commercial strongly suggests that economic values are not the sole

motivation for those fishing. Further, it seems that for the

Columbia River gillnet fishery, distribution of income is not

normal—it is highly distorted toward the low-income range.

It is probable this skewed distribution is characteristic of other

gears as well.
6

This assumption, however, is increasingly difficult

to maintain for fisheries dependent on basin

anadromous stocks. This is because sunken costs,

low market value for factors of production, fisher

optimism, anticipation of buyouts, and other

factors may distort the influence of market forces

on the choice to continue fishing. Under these

conditions, the appropriate value to use from

Rettig and McCarl is the higher one. With an

expanding fishery or rapidly increasing prices

(even temporarily), the lower figure may be more

appropriate. The current (1994) ban imposed on

most commercial salmon fishing in Oregon and

Washington obviates this discussion entirely except

for British Columbia and Alaska fisheries. Detailed

discussion of commercial salmon values is

included below.

Native Americans in the basin maintain ceremonial, religious, and subsistence-oriented fisheries.

Economists seldom attempt to place a monetary

value on fishing done for ceremonial and religious

purposes by Native Americans, but some do make

an effort, inappropriately, however, to account for

subsistence values. The value accorded Native

American subsistence fisheries in previous economic studies tends to be the retail price of the

equivalent amount of fish (Tripp and Rockland

1990). In the present study, the subsistence harvests are reported where known. No attempt is

made to place an economic value on them except

where they are inextricably mixed with commercial reporting.

Recreational fishing in the Pacific Northwest is

done primarily on public lands and waters. There

is a limited market for access to fishing. Thus,

resource economists have developed ways to estimate

the preferences of consumers for sport fishing to

compensate for the lack of a market. Travel cost

models (TCMs) were first developed to provide a

surrogate price for recreation activities for which

there was no market. The TCM estimates are

based on the observed behavior of recreational

users in direct response to travel costs and travel

time. There are various methods of estimating

travel costs, the details of which are not addressed

in this study.7

 The TCM surveys have given way

to the prevailing contingent valuation methods

(CVM) that survey the consumer's willingness to

pay to participate in a particular recreation activity

contingent on change in the availability of fishing

opportunity or willingness to accept payment to

forego participation in a recreational activity

(Pearce 1993, Walsh and others 1988). Further

discussion of recreational fishing values for the

basin is provided below under the topic of recreational fishing for anadromous, cold-water, and

warm-water species.

Not all values of fish are captured by commercial

and recreational fisheries. Option values and

existence values are mentioned above but are not

assessed in this study. Other nonconsumptive

values of fish in the basin are found in the popular

fish-viewing sites at dams, hatcheries, and natural

spawning and rearing areas. People enjoy watching fish as part of their recreational experiences,

and some even like watching others fish. Fishing

festivals sponsored by towns and organizations in

the basin represent further fish-oriented values to

society that do not necessarily involve harvest.

Reliable studies of net economic value of fisheries

usually are difficult to obtain owing to (1) lack of

data, (2) the need to make assumptions to make

up for data, (3) errors associated with reporting,

and (4) comparability and transferability of data.

The present study faces an even more daunting

prospect: the enormous task of examining commercial, sport, and tribal fisheries in a context

relevant to understanding ecosystem management

in the basin. The large temporal and spatial scope

for this assessment places considerable constraints

on the analysis that can be performed.

Constraints include:

• Lack of data from early historical periods. This

discussion relies on accounts of travelers and on

estimates made by anthropologists (Schalk

1986).

7 See Walsh and others (1988) for a review of methods and

their applications.
7

• Spotty coverage of later periods with respect to

harvest data and the relation to overall production. Run sizes were not calculated until 1938,

although some efforts have been made to

extrapolate run sizes from harvest and packing

data (Smith 1979).

• Nature of fisheries and the difficulty of

intertemporal comparisons of economic production data because of factors including

natural variability of fish stocks, impacts of fish

harvesting, impacts of fish management,

changes in technologies, changes in product

type, and "exogenous" changes in market prices

(Hanna 1983).

• Lack of systematic collection of data relevant to

performance of economic analysis, especially

on capital and operating costs of commercial

fishing and processing. Some time series of

data on harvests and prices exist, however, from

as early as 1866 (Netboy 1980, Smith 1979).

• Sport fishing data are also scant and cover

either narrowly constrained species and areas

(so their transferability is limited) or broad

species and areas (so their utility is limited

relative to a species and area).

• Considerable debate is now underway in the

professional economic community about fundamental technical issues of measurement of

contingent valuation (Adamowicz and others

1994, Morely 1994) and over benefit transfers

(Brookshire and Neill 1992, Loomis 1992,

McConnell 1994, Vatn and Bromley 1994).

Limits of time and resources that could be devoted

to this study further constrain the product. No

original survey research is performed to determine

economic value of commercial, sport, and tribal

fisheries. Instead, existing studies are examined for

relevant data and analysis for the areas and time

periods under consideration. Effort is made to use

the most recent reliable information and to adjust

to current conditions. For these fisheries, the data

are indicative and not definitive.

Native Americans believe that the effort to assign

monetary values to salmon is misplaced. This

contrasts with the perspective of economists who

believe that monetary values are a shorthand way

of reflecting the relative value to consumers. For

Native Americans, salmon and other species of fish

are components of a traditional diet and may hold

sacred positions in traditional cultures of the basin

that cannot be represented in monetary terms.

This does not imply that trade and barter for

salmon are not significant. It also does not preclude Native Americans from harvesting fish for

sale.

An increasing number of non-Native Americans

concerned about fisheries agree with the assessment

that commercial value does not represent the true

value of salmon or other species. Salmon are symbolic of quality of life (Oregon State University

1978, SOS 1995) and health of the environment

(Karr 1993) in the Pacific Northwest. Economists

acknowledge these concerns but argue that assessment of the economic value of salmon and economic impacts of changes in salmon management

conditions also can be helpful. Still others argue

that what economists measure as value may not be

relevant to the critical decisions society must make

about things like recovery of salmon in the basin

(Vatn and Bromley 1994).

Precommercial

Fisheries to 1860

The economic value of fisheries to Native Americans of the interior Pacific Northwest nearly 200

years ago cannot be calculated in conventional

economic terms. This section establishes a

baseline of usage of the fish resources and their

significance for Native Americans living in the

basin in the early and mid 1800s. The anthropological record and reports of early travelers reveal

that salmon was a keystone of year-round diet for

many Native Americans and that other fish species

provided variation and complemented salmon as

part of the diet. Within the basin, salmon may

have provided between 30 and 40 percent of

dietary needs (Hunn 1990). Significant amounts
8

of processed salmon constituted a chief trade item

among Native Americans and, later, were important in barter with fur traders and settlers. One

expression of the transcendent value of salmon to

Native Americans in the basin is that of Matilda

Mitchell (translated by Delbert Frank, Sr.) at

Warm Springs (Meyer Resources, Inc. 1983):

We were talking about the essence of the

teaching as our Creator handed down to our

people, which has been handed down through

centuries or through generations . . . . The

first food is salmon to us; that is our first

food. And we recognize that, as such, without it our life would not have its full potential

as far as our existence is concerned . . . .

A statement on the broader economic significance

of salmon to Native Americans of the basin is

found in Rostlund (1952):

The annual coming of the salmon was an

event of great economic importance; there

was nothing comparable to it in other parts

of the continent. In no other waters of

North America during aboriginal time was

the seasonal range from abundance to scarcity

of fish so great as in the western salmon

rivers. Even to the salt-water tribes, who

could fish in the sea at any time, the coming

of the salmon was a great annual event. It

can be said without exaggeration that no

aspect of nature in North America was so

critically important in the economic life of

a fishing folk as was the salmon run in

the West.

Native Americans were major users of anadromous

and other fish species in the basin where spawning

habitat was accessible. The Pacific Northwest

fishing societies had relatively "high population

densities, complex social organization, large villages,

and other features ordinarily found only among

agricultural people" (Schalk 1986). Even among

the basin fishing societies, as much as a tenfold

difference existed in the population densities

among tribes—midriver tribes being more densely

spaced than interior tribes (Hunn 1990). Four

culturally distinct groups are recognized among

tribes in the basin:

1. The Northwest coastal group (mid-Columbia

being the eastern extension).

2. The upper Columbia (Plateau) group.

3. The south-central Oregon and northwestern

Great Basin group.8

4. The upper basin group (which belongs to Great

Plains tribes).

For the main Columbia-Snake River groupings,

each is made up of bands or tribes that share a

village or camp during the course of an annual

economic cycle and who share a common language. Usually, the common habitation occurred

during the major salmon fishery. Within each of

these tribal groups, there is considerable diversity

in patterns of food resource use, with midColumbia and Plateau groups focused on riverine

resources, roots, and large game and the southern

groups dependent on salmon and other fish, seeds,

and small game. The Great Plains tribes were less

dependent on fish and more dependent on hunting of buffalo and other game. They traded dried

meat, horses, and skins as well as obsidian and

other resources where they had a comparative

advantage for dried salmon and pemmican (a

mixture of dried meat, fat, and berries pressed into

small cakes). They came long distances to participate in salmon fishing and to trade.

At the beginning of the 19th century, significant

changes were underway affecting tribal societies

and their relation to fish resources. Contact with

ocean explorers and their goods came indirectly

through trade with coastal tribes; however, at this

time, these external impacts were minor. The

introduction of horses to the Columbia Plateau

area in the 1700s allowed travel for hunting and

gathering and transport of trade goods, including

salmon. By the late 1700s, eastern Columbia

8Tribal names and organizations of 1800 do not necessarily

correspond to current designations. The three main language

families represented in eastern Oregon and Washington are

the Shahaptian, Salishan, and Shoshonean (Ruby and Brown

1981).
9

Plateau tribes were hunting for buffalo in presentday Montana. The horse also allowed tribes to

travel to places where salmon fishing was better

and fish were in better condition.

Spread of disease had a profound impact on

Native Americans living in the basin. The Native

American population before contact with Europeans

may have been as high as 100,000 people (Boyd

1985). The spread of smallpox around 1775

and another epidemic (malaria according to Cone

1995) in 1801, however, caused many deaths,

resulting in an estimated combined mortality of

45 percent (Schalk 1986). By mid-19th century,

the basin population had dwindled considerably,

such that early settlers met with a vastly depauperate

human environment compared to that observed

by Lewis and Clark.

The most commonly cited estimate of early use of

salmon by Native Americans in the basin is that of

Craig and Hacker (1940).9

 Craig and Hacker’s

estimate is based on a population of about 50,000

Native Americans occupying the basin in the early

19th century, each of whom is thought to have

consumed an average of 1 pound of salmon per

day.10 This results in an estimated annual consumption of over 18 million pounds of salmon.

Sharp decimation in the populations of Native

Americans in the basin occurred in the first half of

the 1800s. By mid-century, the estimated population stood at about one-sixth (8,280) that of the

previous population levels. The tribal population

was below the combined population of settlers in

Oregon and Washington by 1860. Western

Montana and Idaho had relatively few settlers at

that time. This precipitous drop in population

must have been reflected in the consumption of

fish resources.

Hewes (1947) uses additional ethnographic data

and revised population estimates to arrive at an

annual consumption of salmon by basin tribes of

about 22.3 million pounds. Schalk (1986) considers that both prior estimates could understate the

usage because they do not take into account the

loss of caloric content by migrating salmon, fail to

adjust the weight for inedible portions like the

head and bones, and do not include all uses of

salmon by Native Americans, that is, dog food,

fuel, as well as internal and external basin trade.

Schalk's estimate is nearly 41.8 million pounds

consumed annually, which still excludes possible

use as dog food and fuel (see appendix C).

The Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC

1986) examined historical data to determine

original run sizes for Columbia River salmon and

steelhead. It estimated that between 11 and 16

million salmon and steelhead was the long-term

average "natural" production.11 Schalk regards

this run size as consistent with his own estimate, if

the NPPC conversions of his estimates of consumption to numbers of fish (4.5 to 6.3 million

fish using lower Columbia River commercial catch

data 1880-1920) are accurate and if one assumes a

50-percent catch-efficiency quotient. This would

translate into a run size of 9 to 12.6 million fish—

the low end of the NPPC estimate.

9All estimates are for the entire Columbia River basin. This

includes the Columbia River reaches in Canada, Idaho, and

below the current Bonneville Dam (that is, Willamette River,

Chehalis River). These areas are not in the east-side assessment area, and so the quantities are overstated. Based on

discussions and tables in Hewes (1947) and Schalk (1986), a

reasonable partitioning of the production to just the east-side

assessment area might be 40 to 50 percent.

10 The reliability of estimates is highly susceptible to the

assumptions about population size and the nutritional value

and availability of the fish in various parts of the river basin.

See Hunn’s (1990) review and discussion of population

estimates and Schalk’s (1986) review and discussion of

nutritional values. These estimates are adopted for purposes of

this study.

11 The NPPC 1986 estimate is criticized by some for taking

the peak catches of all runs and then assuming a 50-percent

harvest rate. A more restrictive total run based on average run

sizes might be on the order of 7 to 9 million salmon (Turner

1994).
10

Analysis of economic value of the fisheries normally

would require adjustment of the value of the harvest

by the costs incurred in obtaining and processing

the fish. No studies of the capital costs of gear and

facilities used in Native American harvests have

been located; such costs probably would seem

minimal by modern standards. Native Americans

relied on locally available materials. The only

major costs were the opportunity costs of labor in

gathering the materials and crafting them into

serviceable nets, canoes, weirs, etc., and using

them to harvest fish and then process, transport,

and store the fish. Labor costs can be considerable, but when compared to the effort required to

obtain a comparable amount of high-quality food

from other sources, the investment must be seen as

highly favorable. This conclusion is supported by

the pre-European contact high-population densities

among the tribes.

Considerable agreement exists among anthropologists and early historians over the role salmon

played in the diets of Native Americans in the

basin, and these observations are confirmed by

the oral histories of Native Americans. Salmon

were available in massive quantity in relatively few

areas but were locally abundant (and catchable)

throughout the basin. Kettle Falls and The Dalles

(Celilo Falls) were the major sites for harvest and

processing for storage and trade. At such sites,

many Native Americans congregated to fish,

gamble, race horses, and maintain social interaction. At places such as Celilo Falls, some families

were accorded a traditional use-right for a particular fishing spot. These seem to have been freely

shared with relatives, friends, and even strangers.

Although the major sites are best known, harvest

activities occurred on a smaller scale throughout

the portions of the ecosystem occupied by salmon.

Usage in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow

and upper Columbia River basins is reviewed by

Mullan and Williams (1993). Small fishing camps

throughout the basin are known from tribal accounts, travelers' reports, and archeological research.

The sharing of resources and fishing sites under

the direction of salmon chiefs is a remarkable

institutional adaptation to the mixed groupings of

peoples who depended on these sites (see Chance

1973). There was an adequate to abundant supply

of food for the tribes throughout most of the

basin. The main exceptions were tribes in the

extreme northeast and southern part of the area

who frequently suffered hunger in low salmon

years (Hewes 1947). For the mid-Columbia

tribes, fish were available in large quantities for

about 6 months of the year, and dried and smoked

salmon were a major source of nourishment the

rest of the year.

Compared to Native American cultures elsewhere,

the "salmon people" density in the basin was

much higher than could be sustained by mere

hunting and gathering (Schalk 1986). Others

agree with the importance of salmon and other

fish in the diets but point to strong evidence that

seasonally and in years of low abundance, starvation occurred among many tribes. Obviously,

main-stem Columbia River tribes would be in a

better position to harvest fish from multiple runs,

and there would be less fluctuation in their catches.

Upriver tribes and those on single tributaries

would be much more vulnerable to fluctuations.

It is important to consider the influence of trade

on Native Americans and their environment in

the first half of the 1800s. By 1810, the fur trade

(beavers, marten, and muskrats, etc.) had started

at places like Fort Colville, Fort Spokane, and Fort

Vancouver. According to Hudson's Bay Company

records, formal trade in salmon and salmon products at Fort Colville was a minor activity although

a critical one for survival of the fur traders

(Chance 1973). Schalk (1986) reports, however,

that the Lewis and Clark Expedition observed

"stacks" of baskets of processed salmon (pemmican) containing an estimated 115,000 to 128,000

pounds of fish. The implication is that these

baskets were suitable for horse transport and

would be used in trade with Columbia Plateau

tribes and with south-central Oregon tribes that
11

lacked access to rivers with salmon. The ability to

dry and process salmon into pemmican gave basin

peoples an item for trade with coastal Native

Americans who were not able to preserve salmon

in this way because of the more humid climate

(Spranger and Anderson, n.d.).

Manufactured goods like guns and ammunition,

horse riding gear, and tobacco were available

through fur trading, and probably fish trading as

well, and these continued to alter cultural and

environmental relations in the early and mid

1800s (Chance 1973). Fish trade by Native

Americans is believed to have been largely internal

to the basin. External trade is thought to have

been greater in years of high abundance and mostly

among tribes existing in the eastern portion of the

basin (NPPC 1986). Trade with tribes of western

Montana and Idaho brought dried buffalo, animal

skins, and other items of comparative advantage in

exchange for dried fish and roots. There seem to

be no systematic studies to quantify trade relations

existing among tribes in the basin in pre-European

contact times—what is known (and knowable) is

largely anecdotal.

Salmon were the dominant species of fish used by

Native Americans; however, whitefish (various

species), squawfish, chubs, lamprey, sturgeon,

trout, etc., were important also, not only for

subsistence but also for ceremonial and religious

purposes (table 1). Compared with salmon, the

remainder of the native western freshwater fish

fauna was relatively poor with the possible local

exception of trout (Rostlund 1952). Tribes with

less access to salmon resources, like the Upper

Klamath, made greater use of species like chubs

and suckers (Hewes 1947).

Estimates of annual harvests are lacking for freshwater species. Rostlund (1952) estimates that the

tribes located near salmon consumed an average of

800 to 1,000 pounds of fish per square mile of

territory, whereas the tribes in south-central Oregon may have used 50 or less pounds of fish per

square mile of territory. Some of this probably

came through trade. Usage among tribes probably

differed according to taste preferences as well as

with availability of alternative sources of food.

Hunn (1990) confirms that for mid-Columbia

peoples, suckers (note the difference in terminology from table 1; large-scale sucker and bridgelip

sucker) were valued on par with salmon, at least

seasonally, despite being far less abundant. They

served as a late winter and early spring source of

food to break the monotony of dried fish and root

rations and may have staved off famine in lowfood years. Mountain whitefish were known to be

fished through river ice when food reserves were

low. Pacific eels were and continue to be considered a delicacy. The small redshiners also were

used for food. Freshwater mussels were eaten in

great quantities according to archaeologists studying shell middens in the mid-Columbia.

Mid-Columbia tribes did not make use of the

white sturgeon, but lower Columbia tribes did.

Myths of mid-Columbia tribes about the sturgeon

being capable of swallowing a human and thereby

being cannibalistic, and therefore taboo, may have

contributed to this difference. The Dolly Varden

char, which eats mice and frogs, was similarly

shunned by some tribes. Sculpins (at least eight

Cottus species exist in the river) and crayfish are

not used because of their perceived spiritual powers, such as the Indian doctor fish. That many

other fish exist in the basin but do not seem to be

formally addressed in the tribal language, indicates

that they were probably not heavily used by the

mid-Columbia tribes (Hunn 1980). Hunn notes,

however, that it is possible whitefish constitute a

category of fish and not just a single species in

tribal nomenclature.

The ability of Native Americans to manage fisheries for purposes of conservation is difficult to

assess. The mere existence of large numbers of

salmon and Native Americans over a considerable

length of time (5,000 to 10,000 years) could be

cited as evidence of sustainable management.

Native Americans knew salmon behavior intimately and understood the need for salmon to

migrate to spawn. Many of the cultural practices
12

Table 1—Principal freshwater fish used by Native Americans, interior Columbia basin

Common name Scientific name Distribution of use

Western sea lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus Columbia-Snake River basin and tributaries

 (gairdnerii)

White sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus Main-stem Columbia-Snake Rivers

Salmon, steelhead, kokanee Oncorhynchus spp. Basin where accessible—chief exception in

 south-central Oregon

Montana grayling Thymallus arcticus SW Montana

 montanus

Cutthroat trout, rainbow trout Salmo clarkii, S. gairdnerii Same as above—limited distribution in

 south-central Oregon

Dolly Vardena Salmo malma Same as salmon

Rocky Mountain whitefish Coregonus spp. Basin

Columbia sucker Catostomus machrocheilus Basin

Klamath sucker Chasmistes spp. Klamath River-Klamath Lake

 Deltisties spp.

Mountain sucker Pantosteus spp. SE Washington-Snake River

Columbia River squawfish Ptychocheilus oregenis Basin

Columbia River chub (peamouth) Mylocheilus caurinus Basin

Chiselmouth (chub) Acrocheilus alutaceus Lower Columbia-Snake River

Lake chub Siphateles spp. Moses Lake and Crab Creek

 southern Oregon

Freshwater cod (burbot, ling) Lota leptura Lake Chelan-N. Idaho-western Montana

Trout perch (sandroller) Columbia transmontana Lower to mid-Columbia

Smelt, eulachon, candlefish Thaleichthys pacificus Lower Columbia

a Currently Dolly Varden and bull trout (S. confluentus) are considered separate species. Bull trout is more common in the

basin, and fish that had previously been identified as Dolly Varden may actually have been bull trout.

Source: Prepared from distribution maps and text in Rostlund (1952). Fish nomenclature same as source.
13

(that is, first salmon ceremony and no night fishing) allowed fish to reach the spawning grounds.

Certainly, the reverence Native Americans accorded the salmon is an indication that they

would practice measures to protect salmon survival. Still, the great abundance of salmon and the

limited ability to harvest all of them by using

dipnets and other gear may have made this question moot given the population levels and distribution.

Relatively little is known about what might be

termed recreational or incipient commercial fisheries of the period. There is little evidence that

Native Americans viewed fishing as anything other

than a food-gathering activity. Fishing by Native

Americans does not seem to be a sport in the

context of what is now thought of as recreational

activity. This is not to say that no pleasure or

satisfaction was derived from the activity or that

there was not competition among individuals to

see who could be most skillful or fortunate.

Early settlers used salmon to augment their diets

of game and agricultural products (Craig and

Hacker 1940). In most cases, individuals probably

harvested their own subsistence fish, but some

evidence suggests that settlers were dependent

on Native Americans to supply their fish (Cohen

1986). Native Americans supplied trading posts

with fish, presumably in barter arrangements,

and it is likely that such exchange extended to

other settlers, although there were few settlers in

the basin at this time. Traders, explorers, miners,

and settlers probably enjoyed fishing as recreation,

but there is little documentation of such activity.

Commercial salting for export is known from the

lower Columbia River area in the 1830s (Cone

1995), but commercial harvest did not occur in

the mid and upper Columbia river area. Vessels

visiting the Columbia River often took away a part

of a cargo of barrels (ca.140 pounds) of salted salmon

and sold it for $12 to $14 per barrel (Craig and

Hacker 1940). One of the chief constraints on

transport of salmon was the need to transit tropical regions before reaching destinations of sale as

far away as Hawaii and the east coast of the

United States. By the 1860s, lower Columbia

salteries were producing 1 to 2,000 barrels of

salmon per year. Native Americans caught most of

this fish and were paid $40 per month.

The last decade of the precommercial period in

the basin is characterized by conflict between

Native Americans and settlers. Encroachment on

the basin lands by settlers had begun in earnest,

and unfortunate incidents occurred to sour what

had been generally amicable relations. Territorial

Governors like Isaac Stevens in Washington were

under pressure from the Federal Government to

use treaties to acquire title to the tribal land

(Hunn 1990). Native Americans were understandably alarmed about losing lands and resources they had always known and used, and

their concepts of property probably were not

understood by settlers (Cohen 1986). Nevertheless, treaties were signed with many of the tribes in

the basin by the middle of the 1850s. In economic terms, these treaties represent an incalculable allocation of land and resources away from

Native Americans and towards settlers. One

estimate is that tribes gave up use of 64 million

acres in these treaties in exchange for reservations

but mostly for the right to fish in usual and accustomed places (Barker 1993). The treaties set a

pattern of interaction between tribes and resource

managers that affected and continues to affect the

management and allocation of fish.
14

Commercial and Recreational

Fisheries, 1860 to 1980

The era of commercial fisheries in the basin was

heralded by a turbulent decade in the 1850s with

so-called "Indian wars" that in some cases pitted

tribes against each other and against the U.S.

Army and territorial and state militias. Joint

occupation of Oregon territory by the British and

the United States in 1818 had resolved in the

United States becoming sole authority as a result

of the Treaty of 1842, with movement toward

statehood for Oregon (1859) well underway.

Territorial governors began to exert pressure to

open up land for immigrants. Settlement negotiations resulted in treaties, like the Yakima Treaty,

June 1855, that ceded Native American lands to

the U.S. Government while guaranteeing exclusive

use of areas to be known as reservations and retaining tribal rights to fish in usual and accustomed places (Freeman and Martin 1954, Hunn

1990, Johansen and Gates 1957). The treaties set

the stage for a wave of settlements by non-Native

Americans in the lower Columbia River area as

well as in the basin.

This section examines the qualitative economic

impacts of commercial fisheries development,

focusing first on the tribal fisheries, then commercial fisheries, and finally on recreational fisheries.

A qualitative approach is adopted for this section

because the trends in numbers of fish and participation in fisheries tend to track the same trends in

value of fish. Significant changes occurred in the

habitat and institutional arrangements for the

commercial and other fisheries over the course of

this period that influenced their allocation and

value.

Native American Fisheries

The preponderance of the commercial fishery in

the late 1800s took place in the lower Columbia

River basin with trap nets, purse seines, and drift

gillnets. Native Americans in this area were some

of the best suppliers of fish to canneries in their

early days; however, they increasingly were supplanted by non-Native Americans. In the basin,

Native Americans participated in the burgeoning

commercial fisheries to a relatively modest degree.

Tribal fisheries occurred in the mid-Columbia

reaches of the basin and used predominantly

dipnets with spears, nets, and baskets in some

cases. The main effort was concentrated at traditional fishing sites for subsistence and other cultural and religious uses rather than for commercial

use. Total quantities taken by Native Americans in

commercial fisheries are not separately reported

during this period. The quantity taken for traditional uses can be estimated to be considerably less

than in earlier times because the Native American

population was much lower and because the

adoption of agriculture, ranching, and other employment made them less dependent on salmon

for sustenance than they were as hunter-gatherers.

Even if the quantities of fish taken were lower, the

subsistence value and other values to tribal people

remained high.

In the mid-Columbia River basin, many conflicts

occurred between Native Americans dipnetting

salmon and non-Native American fishing.

Fishwheel operators were in direct competition

over the best sites for harvesting salmon and competed indirectly by harvesting fish before Native

Americans could harvest them. When fishwheels

were banned from the Columbia in 1935 (see

below), the Native American share of total catches

more than tripled—from 2.7 percent in 1930-34

to 9.1 percent in 1936-39 (Smith 1979). Competition with dams and other habitat loss made

inroads into the tribal dipnet fisheries. The main

dipnet fishery at Celilo Falls continued until 1957,

when it was flooded by the water behind The

Dalles Dam (see appendix D). For 1938-57,

salmon and steelhead catches at Celilo Falls by

Native Americans ranged from 800,000 to 3.5

million fish and averaged about 1.7 million fish—

mostly chinook and steelhead with some sockeye

(WDFW and ODFW 1994). When Celilo Falls

was inundated by construction of The Dalles

Dam, a lump sum payment of $23 million was

made for a " flowage easement" over the lost

fishing site. The tribes were adamant, and courts

upheld their view that rights to fish were retained
15

(Wilkinson 1992). Catches dropped in 1958 to

only a few thousand fish as tribal fishing was

forced to convert to set nets fished in the reservoirs. By using set nets, catches averaged about

1.3 million pounds (93,000 fish) per year through

the mid 1960s and 1970s (Smith 1979).

The most important issue facing the claims of

Native Americans to fish resources in the basin

was litigated in the 1970s. With the treaty fishing

zone being located upstream (zone 6) and most of

the fishery occurring downstream or in the ocean,

questions about the meanings of the treaty language

and particularly the share of the harvest accruing

to Native Americans were raised. In landmark

decisions by Judge Belloni in United States v.

Oregon 1969 and Judge Boldt in United States v.

Washington 1974, it was determined that fishing

"in common" meant that fisheries management

should ensure that the harvests were split 50-50

between treaty and nontreaty fishing entities

(see Cohen 1986; Smith 1979; Spranger and

Anderson, n.d.). These decisions helped set the

stage for a new era of fisheries management with

vastly different allocation parameters and with

tribes at the negotiating table with respect to

management. In 1977, four major Columbia

River fishing tribes established the Columbia River

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRIFC). These

legal affirmations of tribal fishing rights set the

stage for shifts in the share of catch between

treaty and nontreaty fishing (see below).

Although most of the attention by tribes is accorded salmonids, Native Americans continued

traditional fisheries for other species in the basin,

including Pacific lamprey, sturgeon, squawfish,

whitefish, trouts, suckers, and chubs. For tribes

with reservations distant from fishing sites, these

other species where locally abundant had greater

significance. Relatively little documentation of

these fisheries is in the literature for most of this

period. Hunn (1990) describes some aspects of

the usage of nonsalmonid resources by one family.

(Unfortunately it was beyond the scope of this

inquiry to obtain broader oral histories concerning

fishing practices for these species, as this could be

critical information for the tribes and for land and

resource managers in the future.)

Commercial Fisheries

Commercial fisheries in the basin evolved rapidly

to reach and exceed the levels of salmon harvest

seen in the precommercial era (appendix D).

Commercial fishing started in the early 1860s

on the the lower reaches of the river for salmon,

sturgeon, and the introduced shad and gradually

expanded toward the ocean and upstream as competition for fish increased. Agricultural and forest

practices were of such relatively limited extent that

they did not have an appreciable impact on fish

habitat until the 1960s and 1970s when irrigated

agriculture developed as part of massive dam

construction. Construction of dams for production of hydroelectricity, flood control, irrigation,

and other purposes started early on the tributary

rivers of the basin, but main-stem dams with high

potential to affect migratory fisheries did not

develop until the 1930s and 1940s. Almost as

soon as commercial fisheries began, overharvesting

was a concern. Early efforts were made to regulate

the fisheries and to augment natural production of

salmon by using fish hatcheries. Spread of troutculturing techniques led to the establishment as

early as 1910 of commercial rainbow trout-raising

activity along the Snake River in southern Idaho

and to a more limited extent elsewhere as well.

Salmon—By 1866, advanced canning technology

made it feasible to process the otherwise perishable

salmon for distant markets. In that year, the first

cannery was established in Astoria, Oregon, with

production commencing in the following year.

Early fishing with drift gillnets, purse seines, trap

nets, beach seines, and fishwheels rapidly expanded

the harvests and dominated the production from

the lower Columbia River. Commercial fishing

with fishwheels, first tried in 1879, was especially

suited for the Columbia Gorge and Cascade

Range areas of the Columbia River upstream from

the current Bonneville Dam. Fishwheels took

advantage of the power of the swiftly flowing river

to turn the wheel in places where the migratory

behavior of salmon caused them to congregate
16

(Spranger and Anderson, n.d.). It also allowed

operators to avoid competition with the established operations downstream.

Fishwheels in their heyday (1899) numbered 76

and caught about 5 percent of the total salmon

harvested in the river (Donaldson and Cramer

1971), but they caught virtually all the commercial salmon in the basin. An indication of the split

in relative level of effort is seen by most of the

salmon being caught by the 2,500 to 3,000 fishing

boats and many traps in the lower Columbia River.

The fishwheel properly situated and operating was

an extraordinarily effective method of harvesting

fish. Its operation could be closely coupled with

that of the processing plant. As conflicts between

gear types escalated in tandem with declining fish

runs, the company-owned fishwheels garnered less

sympathy than gillnetters and sports fishing

interests with voters. Fishwheels were outlawed

by Oregon in 1926 and in Washington in 1934.

With them went the chief component of the basin

commercial fishery. Other gear types caught

relatively modest amounts of fish above Bonneville

Dam. In the 1930s, the income generated by

salmon harvests from the full Columbia River

system was estimated at about $10 million

annually (Craig and Hacker 1940).

Gear conflicts continued to be a highly politicized

issue on the Columbia River. By 1950, the only

non-Treaty commercial fishing gear allowed was

the drift gillnet. Sport fishing with hook and line

and treaty fisheries using dipnets are the only

other fishing methods allowed (a detailed history

of these conflicts about gear is documented in

Smith [1974]).

The Columbia River chinook salmon was the

almost exclusively targeted species in the early

fisheries because of its abundance and value (see

appendix D, tables 20-24). This heavy selective

fishing pressure resulted in a decline in chinook

stocks so that by 1884, some were prompted to

argue for state regulations to limit the amount of

catch (Seasons and other regulations were established in 1871). This measure was largely ineffectual in conserving salmon because of the

availability of abundant coho, chum, sockeye, and

steelhead salmon. With decline in the chinook

numbers, the fishery simply began to focus on

other species. Total harvest of all species fluctuated

between 24 and 49 million pounds annually from

1880 to 1930, averaging 33.9 million pounds

(Smith 1979); also 1.3 million to 3.6 million fish

and averaging 2.3 million fish per year [NPPC

1986]. After this time, harvests gradually fell to

lows of 10.9 million pounds annually by the

1950s and 1960s (an average of about 630,000

fish annually). Changes in size of fish harvests

were somewhat offset by efforts of processors to

stabilize the price of salmon on the market to

maintain market position (Smith 1979).

Harvests in the lower Columbia were based largely

on fish that spawn and rear in the basin portions of

the watershed; therefore, not only did commercial

fishing in the basin affect stocks, but the bulk of the

harvests of basin-origin fish occured downstream.

This situation continued to worsen from the

standpoint of management for conservation of

stocks, as new types of gear played leapfrog with

the other types in getting first opportunity to

catch the fish. Harvests at sea in the troll fleets off

the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington

began in the late 1910s and early 1920s to intercept

fish in the basin. In addition, harvesting along

Canada’s west coast and Alaska included basin

salmon as did harvests in the north Pacific by

foreign fleets. The level of interceptions is difficult

to document over time. One estimate for the

period 1969-73 based on tag returns for chinook

salmon shows troll harvests in southeastern Alaska

to have an interception rate of 45 percent; British

Columbia, Queen Charlotte Island—25 percent;

British Columbia, west coast of Vancouver Island—

45 percent; Washington, Puget Sound—50 percent;

Washington, coastal—65 percent; and Oregon,

coastal—47 percent based on the ratio of fish

caught in the Columbia River to fish caught

elsewhere (Smith 1979 citing Hatley 1976).

Thus, the basin contributed significantly to

commercial fisheries outside its boundaries.
17

Through the Great Depression, salmon was seen

as a staple food at a lower price than most cuts of

meat in domestic and foreign markets. Its high

protein content made it an extremely good value

nutritionally. The Depression years resulted in

declines in the amount of fish canned, which

coincided with continued declines in the abundance of salmon in the Columbia River as well as

lower prices for fish. World War II buoyed the

price of salmon, and in the post-War era, canned

salmon shifted its status from a staple food item to a

luxury food. Of course, the price of salmon was

not determined totally by Columbia River stocks.

Alaska’s and Japan’s canned salmon figured heavily

into the international market price. Besides these

price effects, canned salmon lost considerable

market share as incomes and taste preferences

changed to favor fresh and frozen salmon. Consequently, almost all salmon canneries on the Columbia River had closed by 1975 (Smith 1979).

White sturgeon—White sturgeon is a native

anadromous fish in the Columbia River system.

Its highest abundance and harvest is in the slowmoving waters of the main-stem river (Pacific

States Marine Fisheries Commision [PSMFC]

1992), but it is found throughout the Columbia

River system as far upstream as the Kootenai River

in Montana and in the upper Snake River in

Idaho. Columbia River harvest began fairly early

on a small scale (see appendix E). Starting in

1884, commercial catches rose rapidly to 5.5

million pounds in the 1890s and then dropped

precipitously as the stock was overexploited.

Sturgeon caviar and smoked or canned flesh were

popular and found an export market because they

could be preserved. The combination of high

demand and value balanced against the slow

growth rate of sturgeon required careful management, which the sturgeon did not receive. In

about a decade, sturgeon was eliminated as a

significant commercial species (Craig and Hacker

1940). Catches remained low from the early

1900s to the 1960s (PSMFC 1992). They ranged

between 54,000 and 388,000 pounds until in the

1970s, when their numbers began to rise again.

The fishery above Bonneville Dam (zone 6) is a

consistent but modest part of the total harvest in

the river. Extremely small and closely regulated

commercial fisheries exist in some parts of the

river system, but sturgeon is scarcely considered a

significant source of income except on a local

basis.

Construction of dams on the Columbia River

severely restricted the movements of large, old,

slow-growing fish that represent the spawning

population. It is thought that juvenile and small

sturgeon may be carried downstream past dams in

the basin and in that manner be recruited into the

lower river fishery. Upstream fish ladders and

bypass facilities are not considered to be designed

to facilitate upstream migration. Some efforts

have been made to explore hatchery production

for supplementation and for commercial culture in

Idaho (PSMFC 1992). In summary, the basin

contains a small commercial harvest of sturgeon

and may contribute to the lower river fishery.

Shad—Shad were introduced into California

rivers from New England in 1871 and spread

along the coast as far north as Alaska. By 1876-77,

shad were known in the Columbia River system

(Wydoski and Whitney 1979). A commercial

fishery started in the late 1800s for shad and

continued sporadically in the lower Columbia

depending on the price, especially for shad roe

(Craig and Hacker 1940). Main-stem dam construction starting in the 1930s seems to have been

beneficial for shad populations. They have increased considerably in the slower waters of the

reservoirs to where they support a fishery that

since 1938 has ranged from 150,000 pounds to

1.5 million pounds (see appendix E). Before the

damming of the Columbia River, Celilo Falls was

a natural barrier to shad. Now shad have extended

their range to the Priest Rapids Dam on the midColumbia and into Idaho on the Snake River.

The value of shad actually decreased relative to

other seafood over time because of a lack of demand and high abundance. Harvest management

of shad is difficult because it spawns at about the

same time as higher value summer chinook salmon
18

species that are protected when the fishery

occurs, therefore the higher valued salmon is more

profitable than the shad. Thus, full usage of shad

is subjugated to other management objectives.

Most of the shad fishery takes place in the lower

Columbia River, and yet much of the spawning

and rearing habitat is in the basin. Shad harvest

by tribes in zone 6 is a relatively small part (usually

less than 10 percent) of the total river catch.

Thus, the chief economic contribution to this

fishery from the basin is in the form of habitat

for spawning and rearing.

Trout culture—Trout culture is over 100 years old

in the basin (Glude 1989). It was an easy step from

private and public trout hatcheries for recreation

to trout farms for commerce. Starting in the late

1920s, commercial production of rainbow trout

stayed low until the late 1950s when production

began to increase rapidly. By the end of the 1970s,

about 30 million pounds of rainbow trout were

produced annually (Brannon and Klontz 1989).

The Thousand Springs area of Hagerman Valley

in Idaho dominates the U.S. production of commercial rainbow trout with some 14 companies,

30 farms, and 16 fee-fishing pond operations for

sport fishing. Other trout fish farms and aquaculture facilities growing catfish and tilapia exist in

Idaho as well as eastern Oregon and Washington

that add to the commercial and recreational (trout)

values from fish culture. The products of these

aquaculture efforts serve markets throughout the

United States and Canada.

Recreational Fisheries

Nontribal subsistence fisheries for salmon and trout

began with exploration and mineral prospecting

and continued with settlement. It was not long,

however, before the first urban dwellers and travelers sought recreational fishing opportunities—

especially with the advent of transcontinental

railroad transportation (Craig and Hacker 1940).

Early travel accounts abound with descriptions of

the remarkable fishing opportunities that existed

in streams and lakes in the basin (see examples in

Byrd 1992, Stone 1983). Hook and line fishing

for salmon seems to have been little known or

practiced in the Pacific Northwest as a recreational

fishery until the 20th century (Smith 1979). No

systematic source of information on early sport

fisheries has been located in the course of this

study. It is impossible, therefore, to provide other

than anecdotal information on the development

and economic significance of sport fishing in

the basin.

Recreational salmon and trout fishing in the

Columbia River system began in the early part of

the period and has steadily grown along with

population, leisure, and income. Demand for

improved sport fishing conditions has been one of

the main drivers of commercial gear and quota

restrictions on the Columbia River, particularly

after World War II (Smith 1974). Catch from

recreational fisheries grew from an insignificant

amount at start of the 20th century to a major

component of the river fishery. Recreational

fishing occurred throughout the range of salmonids in the Columbia River basin, but the greatest

part is found in the lower river where fish quality

is highest. Chief targets for recreational fisheries

have been chinook, coho, and steelhead salmon.

Rainbow, bull (and Dolly Varden), and cutthroat

trout have been the main native species taken, but

the introduced brown trout has provided a significant fishery as well (Ames 1966).

Demand for recreational fishery for trout in

streams, rivers, and lakes has continued to increase. To accommodate the demand, state and

Federal fisheries officials have instituted trout

hatcheries to augment natural production in many

lakes and streams. In most Northwest states, trout

hatcheries were developed in the 1880s to fill the

demand for recreational trout fishing (Wiley

1994). States and the Federal Government did

research, regulated fisheries, enforced regulations,

protected habitat, and even purchased habitat.

Costs of these measures have been borne by general tax revenue, license fees, excise tax on purchase of fishing gear (under the Dingell-Johnson

Act 1950), and on arms and ammunition (under

the Pittman Robertson Act 1937) (see Cubbage
19

and others 1993). All this has served to increase

fishing opportunity and encourage fishing at

higher levels than could be supported by naturally

occurring stocks and without management intervention. Such measures provide economic spinoffs

to resort operators and tourist industry services

near fishing lakes and streams. Time series data on

the contributions of recreational fisheries to local,

largely rural economies are not available for the

basin.

In the arid central basin portions of Oregon, relict

populations of many native stocks exist. Recreational fisheries in these areas have long required

special management by the Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and special measures to

manage habitat by Federal, state, and private land

managers (ODFW 1994, USDI BLM 1991). The

areas supply recreational fishing but with gear,

area, and season restrictions that are particular to

the area. To some extent, the presence of rare and

endangered species has resulted in restrictions on

supplementation programs as well.

Sturgeon sport fisheries have been a component of

the recreational fisheries throughout the Columbia

River system. Catch rates, gears, fish size, and

areas have been subjects of regulations to control

harvests of these slow-growing, long-lived fish

(PSMFC 1992). Most of the sport fishing occurs

in the lower Columbia River, and sturgeon fishermen tend to be from the local area. The sport

fishery on the main-stem Columbia River has

been consistently small scale. Sturgeon recreational fisheries in other parts of the basin in

Idaho and Montana have been heavily restricted

and subject to many closed periods. Efforts have

been made to experiment with sturgeon propagation for recreational fisheries supplementation.

One of the major changes in the basin aquatic

ecosystems is the introduction of nonnative

species. State agencies and private individuals

have intentionally and unintentionally brought

new species into the basin. Some of these have

recognized recreational fishing value, like largemouth and smallmouth bass, crappies, sunfish,

catfish, and perch in the warm water category and

the brown and lake trouts in the cold water category. In the generally dry intermontane basin,

the increase in aquatic environments because of

filling of reservoirs and irrigation facilities has

expanded the availability of habitat for various

native and nonnative species (Bennett and others

1991). Fishing for these warm water species began

in the early 1900s throughout most of the region,

but they were not heavily targeted by recreational

fishing until after World War II. These species

were subject to liberal regulations until demand

increased dramatically and fishing pressure was

greater than that sustainable by the resource (Van

Vooren 1991). In ecosystem terms, some of these

introduced species prey on the native species of

trout and salmon. These native species have been

preferred by traditional basin recreational fishing

enthusiasts. As recreational fishing opportunities

for the traditional sport species declined, however,

there was little hesitancy in shifting to fishing for

introduced species.

Warm water fish species increased the opportunity

for recreational fishing in the basin, which translates into purchases of gear and services in areas

that previously had no or only modest fishing

attraction. Examples from the basin include sport

fishing—the introduced shad began to develop at

the end of the 1970s (Wydoski and Whitney

1979). Walleye that were introduced into the

basin in the 1940s reached sufficient abundance

and size to begin to attract sport fishing interest at

the end of the 1970s (Smith 1991).

Change in Conditions for Fishing

Major changes occurred in the development of the

fisheries. Overfishing was one component that led

to a decline in fish production in the latter part of

the period but also implicated were changes affecting the whole river system and its ability to produce wild fish in natural habitats.
20

Habitat change—Besides the habitat changes

due to dam construction mentioned previously,

land use practices also changed. During the early

commercial period, mining, grazing, logging,

agriculture, and water diversion activities also

began in the Columbia River watershed. In some

cases, the exploitative activities had localized,

devastating consequences for fish in rivers.

Changes in habitat due to extractive activities are

not well documented relative to impacts on fish

harvests or habitats as little monitoring on a watershed basis existed. Literature on significant recent

efforts to reconstruct the ecological health of

selected basin watersheds have been published by

Inland Empire Public Lands Council (1993)

Wissmar and others (1994). The kinds of impacts

identified for these representative watersheds

occurred over time throughout the basin and

resulted in long-term changes in the suitability

of salmon spawning and rearing habitats. Catastrophic natural events like landslides and eruptions as well as natural processes of change in

ecosystems (Harvey and others 1994, Lehmkuhl

and others 1994) including fire (Agee 1993) and

extreme weather conditions (Agee 1994) also play

a role in influencing salmon habitat. But the

overwhelming forces changing the landscape have

been human caused, and the impacts on salmonids

and resident fish have been largely negative.

Some of the human impacts have been severe but

short term. Natural processes have restored the

fish habitat to near pristine conditions. Other

impacts, like water withdrawal are continuous and

increasing and play a greater role on salmon survival during dry years than in wet ones. Other

impacts, like pollution from toxic mining waste

and sedimentation can be chronic and continue to

influence the quality of habitat for fish.

Dams—By the late 1970s, the Columbia River

and its tributaries were blocked by more than 190

dams or impoundments—about 140 of which are

within the basin (see appendix F). Vast portions

of the prime habitats for salmon spawning and

rearing in the Columbia River either were placed

out of reach to spawners or were heavily altered by

inundation or by changes in the flow regime. In

almost all cases, this results in negative impacts on

salmonid survival.

The relative contribution of dams to salmon losses

is a major point of contention, given that harvest

management, and habitat-altering activities in

agriculture, range, and forest management, also are

implicated. The biggest direct and indirect impacts on salmonid habitat in the Columbia River

system likely are due to dam construction and

operation. At least one estimate places the contribution of power system to the loss of fish runs at

80 percent in the basin (Lee 1993). Although it

was well known that salmon spawned in the rivers,

no conclusive evidence existed to support the

theory that salmon returned to their home stream

to spawn until the early to mid 1950s (Stickney

1994 citing Hasler 1954). How such knowledge

would have affected the decisions about dam

construction, provision of fish bypass facilities,

and other mitigation made earlier is unknown. It

can be argued that in the traditional knowledge of

Native Americans, homestream spawning was

known, but such information was discounted or

ignored by scientists and planners.

Main-stem dams on the Columbia River at Rocky

Reach (1933) and Bonneville Dam (1938) marked

a new era in hydropower development in the

Pacific Northwest. Smaller dams existed on tributaries to the Columbia River, like the Swan Falls

and Lower Salmon Falls Dams completed in 1910

on the Snake River (Stickney 1994), but mainstem dams forced significant changes in the migratory pathways of salmonids. Direct losses of fish

habitat occurred when the combination of Chief

Joseph and Grand Coulee (1941) dams were

constructed and further when the Hells Canyon

Dam was completed in 1967. These dams block

access to about one-third of the basin—90,000

square miles lost out of a total of 260,000 square

miles in the Columbia River watershed. The

impact is more appropriately stated in terms of the
21

163,000-square-mile area of the basin historically

accessible to salmon. The direct loss of spawning

and rearing habitat rises to 55 percent of the area

previously used by anadromous salmon (NPPC

1986).

The total length of main-stem and tributary rivers

supporting salmon habitat is about 11,800 miles,

of which 7,400 miles (64 percent) remains accessible and 4,200 miles (36 percent) is no longer

accessible. Much of this loss occurred above

Bonneville Dam. Over 500 miles of the mainstem upper Columbia River were lost when Grand

Coulee Dam was completed and 50 more were

lost with Chief Joseph coming on line. In the

Snake River basin, 50 percent of the main-stem

river used by anadromous fish was lost as a result

of Hells Canyon Dam (WDFW and ODFW

1994). Sockeye salmon are perhaps the species

most affected by loss of habitat (table 2).

Accessibility to spawning grounds is only part of the

habitat suitability equation. Habitat quality also is

important. On the main stem of the Columbia

River above Bonneville Dam, only the 50-milelong Hanford Reach is still riverine in character

and capable of supporting significant spawning

grounds. Columbia River production salmon is

affected by the highly regimented flow due to

operations of the Columbia River hydroelectric

complex (USDI NPS 1994). This means

that much of the Columbia and Snake River

main-stem habitat is under the surface of reservoirs, which increases the effective area lost even

more. In the Snake River tributaries, once major

habitats for chinook and coho, some 3,560 linear

miles of habitat (45 percent) have been lost out of

a total of 7,740 miles (NPPC 1986).

Predevelopment distribution of inriver production

of all species of salmon is estimated to have been

split 23 percent below and 77 percent above

Bonneville Dam (Lee 1993). By the late 1970s,

the upstream Bonneville Dam production (including hatchery production) had dropped to 42

percent with the lower river contributing 58 percent. Thus, not only did the absolute amount of

production plummet above Bonneville Dam, but

the relative amount of production supplied by

upriver habitat also dropped enormously. Much

of the lower Columbia River production is a result

of early decisions to place hatchery production

west of the Cascade Range, a policy decision that

responded well to nontreaty commercial and

recreational fishing demands but not to basin

treaty fisheries.

The species composition of total harvest for the

precommercial versus late-1970s fish populations

remained about the same for chinook (60 percent)

and steelhead (8 percent), although a large share of

each comes from hatchery production. Sockeye

dropped in abundance over the same period from

about 16 percent to only 2 percent. There is

negligible hatchery production of sockeye salmon.

Coho stocks, augmented by hatchery production

increased their share of the population from 11 to

28 percent. Chum salmon declined from 8 to

about 1 percent over the same period.

Other direct and indirect losses of salmon associated with dam construction and operation come

from juvenile fish mortality passing through or

around dams and reservoirs and adult mortality in

fish bypass facilities and reservoirs. Delays in fish

migration downstream and upstream are increasingly seen as problems affecting salmonid survival.

Lack of screened water diversions and changes in

the flow quality and quantity associated with

reservoir-assisted irrigation projects all contribute

to the cumulative mortality affecting salmon.

High harvest rates of hatchery salmon stocks in

the ocean and river also have exacerbated the

problem of survival of wild stocks.

Catch history of salmon species from the Columbia

River is provided in appendix D. During the

1940s, salmon production from the Columbia

River system dropped to about 23.8 million

pounds annually (Smith 1979) average 1.4 million

fish. In the 1950s, harvests declined further to

about 10.9 million pounds (average 650,000 fish).
22

Table 2—Sockeye habitat change in the basin

Year access Remaining habitat

River Lake Area blocked ca. 1970

Acres

Upper Columbia 110,150 -- 0

Upper Arrow 51,904 1939 0

Lower Arrow 37,504 1939 0

Whatshan 4,004 1939 0

Slocan 16,738 1939 0

Middle Columbia: 97,554 -- 8,174

 Okanogan Osoyoos -- -- 5,729

Skaha 4,967 1921 0

Okanogan 85,990 1915 0

 Yakima Bumping 631 1910 0

Cle Elum 1,982 1909-10 0

Kachess 2,744 1904 0

Keechelus 1,240 1904 0

 Wenatchee Wenatchee 2,445 -- 2,445

Snake 6,722 -- 1,500

 Payette Payette Lakesa 1,500 1914 0

 Wallowa Wallowa 1,777 1929 0

 Salmon Stanley Lakesb 3,445 Blocked 1913-34 1,500

(Redfish Lake only

with sockeye now)

Lower Columbia: 250 -- 0

 Metolius Suttle 250 1930 0

Total 214,658 9.674

-- = Not available.

a Little Payette Lake, Payette Lake, and Upper Payette Lake.

b Redfish Lake, Yellowbelly Lake, Pettit Lake, Stanley Lake, and Alturas Lake.

Source: NPPC 1986a.
23

Decline in yields slowed during the 1960s, and

average catch increased slightly in the 1970s, but

by the early 1980s, harvest declined to only 1.2

million pounds (average 230,000 fish). In this

discussion, harvest history is used as a surrogate

for run size under the tenuous assumption that a

strong relation exists. Many factors influence both

harvest and run size. It is, therefore, unlikely that

they co-vary. Still, use of decadal averages provides

a cross section of the data that reliably indicate the

trend in both harvests and run size. If the estimate

of an original run size of 10 to 16 million fish and

harvests of 5 to 6 million fish per year is accepted

for the unaltered Columbia River system, then

the direct loss of 50 to 60 percent of the habitat

would translate into a run size of 5 to 9.6 million

fish as the maximum expected under current

conditions. If indirect mortality associated with

habitat loss and hydrosystem operations are added,

it is understandable how salmon harvests can be

reduced to their current low numbers. Finally, the

low stocks are subject to other negative influences

occurring concurrently; that is, persistent

droughts that affect runoff and river conditions

and El Niño affecting ocean production (Beamish

1995, Miller and Fluharty 1991, Schoener and

Fluharty 1985).

The use of aggregate harvests masks the differential declines and increases in catch (and assumed

abundance) among the main species of salmon in

the basin. Between 1860 and 1980, many species

of salmon became extinct in the basin, and others

declined to the point of either being listed or

being candidates for listing as threatened or endangered (Williams and others 1992).

Hatcheries—Even before the late 1930s, the

perceived and real declines in fish stocks had

sparked interest and investment in fish hatcheries

to artificially augment production. As early as the

1870s, fish processors had begun to experiment

with hatchery operation to supplement fish stocks in

the lower Columbia River tributaries. In the 1890s,

Oregon and Washington as well as the Federal

Government were engaged in hatchery operations,

which were producing 62 million eggs and fry by

1905 (Smith 1979). Hatchery men formed an

association in 1910 to promote hatchery activities.

Strong claims to the success of hatchery operations

were made, but their contribution could not be

separated from wild stocks. As stocks of hatcheryraised species were perceived to have declined

(post-1890) relative to peak levels of abundance

(1880s), fish hatcheries came to be seen less as a

panacea and more as an unrealized hope. In

reality, stock fluctuations were probably not attributable to any single factor. When studies were

commissioned in the early to mid 1930s to evaluate what should be done to offset the habitat losses

from proposed dam construction, hatcheries again

attained prominence (Rich 1942).

Relatively few new hatcheries were constructed

under these uncertain conditions (1910-40) until

costs of hatchery construction and operation

began to be paid from compensation funds for

dam losses under fish and wildlife laws (Netboy

1980) (see appendix G). Capital costs for fish

passage facilities, research, and monitoring were a

significant part of each dam design and construction project as well, averaging perhaps as much as

6.5 percent (Smith 1979). Although hatchery

production has not lived up to expectations,

hatchery production supplies considerable quantities of the catch inriver and in the ocean. This has

allowed fisheries to continue when they might

otherwise be shut down were they based solely on

wild stocks. Hatcheries also allow a higher exploitation rate to be applied in a fishery than if only

wild stocks are targeted (Stickney 1994).

The scale and cost of the hatchery operations by

tribes, states, power companies, and Federal agencies were large. Between 1938 and 1975, about

$400 million dollars was spent on mitigation in

the form of fish passage facilities at dams, and a

small amount was spent for hatcheries and spawning channels. Monitoring of the impacts of

Bonneville Dam on salmon fisheries showed

declining runs. Therefore, a series of 21 hatcheries,

86 fish ladders, and spawning habitat restoration
24

projects was initiated in 1949 at a cost of an

additional $84 million by 1975 (Smith 1979).

Mitchell Act mitigation was designed to produce

fish in the lower Columbia River area, which

meant that tribal fisheries taking place above

Bonneville Dam (zone 6) received little benefit

(Berg 1993). Despite the checkered experience of

using hatcheries as mitigation of habitat loss on the

Columbia River, the same method was selected to

offset the losses of the lower Snake River project.

The last of the four lower Snake River project

dams was completed in 1975; however, the first

appropriation for mitigation facilities came in

1976, and the first fish were produced by the

McCall Hatchery in 1981 (Lothrop 1986).

Modification of dam structures and operations to

provide better conditions for fish survival can

result in major capital costs. Changes in their use

of the flow regime to produce power may reduce

output and result in power revenues foregone and

increases in the cost to purchase power from other

sources (Huppert and Fluharty 1995).

Fishery regulation—Fishery regulation, mainly

directed at salmon, has had important conservation

and allocative consequences in the basin (see appendix H). Throughout the early part of this period,

state management by Oregon and Washington

tended to be competitive rather than cooperative.

More stringent measures implemented on one side

of the Columbia River allowed fishermen to avoid

enforcement by shifting landings to the other side.

In 1918, Oregon and Washington signed the

Columbia River Compact with the intent to

harmonize and make more effective salmon management for domestic salmon fishing inshore

(Smith 1979). Although not entirely successful in

its early years, the compact has provided a forum

for exchange of management perspectives and has

resulted in better coordination (see appendix I).

In 1968, a Columbia River Fisheries Advisory

Council was established by the governors of Idaho,

Oregon, and Washington to allow fisheries directors

from each state to better coordinate management.

For managing their fisheries, Oregon and

Washington established a geographic fishing area

system with six fishing zones for the Columbia

River. Five zones occupy the 140-mile-long section of river downstream of Bonneville Dam

where nontreaty fishing occurs (appendix H).

Zone 6 is the 130-mile stretch of river between the

Bonneville and the McNary Dam where an exclusive treaty commercial salmon setnet fishery takes

place (Madson and Koss 1988); tribes reserve the

position that they may fish in the downstream

zones but have seldom forced that position in

fisheries or in the courts. The states, through the

compact, and tribes, through the CRITFC, established in 1977, coordinate the management of

fisheries in the Columbia River under their various

authorities through the Columbia River Fish

Management Plan. The plan is a result of court

decisions clarifying fisheries management with

respect to the treaties with the tribes. Each state

regulates recreational fisheries and resident fisheries within its respective jurisdictions, and tribes,

through CRITFC, manage their own fisheries.

The plan governs fisheries for chinook, sockeye,

and coho salmon, steelhead, white and green

sturgeon, and shad.

The PSMFC is a regional group established by

Congress in 1948 to coordinate state marine

fisheries policies coastwide (PSMFC 1994). In

1976, Congress passed the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act, which established a regional fishery management body, the

Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC),

for fishery conservation in the 200 nautical-mile

zone off the west coast. The PFMC coordinates

on some aspects of fishery management with the

North Pacific Fisheries Management Council—

especially with respect to Columbia River salmon

migrating through waters off Alaska (PFMC

1991).
25

International management of salmon stocks from

the Columbia River occurred under the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of

the North Pacific Ocean signed originally in 1956.

It was amended in 1978 when the U.S. and Canadian 200-mile fishing zones were declared and

again in 1986. Management of interceptions of

Columbia River fish between Canada and the

United States occurred under the International

Pacific Salmon Fishery Convention (Fraser River

Convention) signed in 1930 and was revised in

1956 and replaced by the Treaty Concerning

Pacific Salmon in 1986 (see Burke 1994, Jensen

1986, Miles and others 1982).

Valuation of Contemporary

Fisheries, 1980 to Present

Previous sections have provided background on

precommercial use of fish in the basin and the

development of tribal and commercial and recreational fisheries. This section details the current

economic value of fisheries in the area subject to

the theoretical and empirical constraints mentioned above. This section provides an overview

of economic aspects of contemporary fisheries as

background for assessing integrated land and

resource management needs and options. We first

examine treaty fishing rights of Native Americans

and then review the nontreaty commercial fisheries.

We next investigate recreational fishing values and

briefly review other related fish valuation issues.

Salmonids continue to dominate the commercial

and, to a certain extent, recreational fisheries, but

other cold and warm water resident fish have

considerable significance as well.

Passage of the Northwest Electric Power Planning

and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act

1980) by Congress set the stage for added regional

efforts to restore fish and wildlife in the basin

(Hildreth and Thompson 1994). Besides a genuine interest in balancing fish and wildlife protection with hydrosystem operations, the proposals in

the 1970s to list some Columbia River salmon

species under the ESA were some of the threats

legislators sought to avoid through passage of the

Northwest Power Act. The Northwest Power Act

staved off the more restrictive actions with its

promise of a coequal partnership between fish and

wildlife and hydroelectric generation to be administered by a regional body of the NPPC (Carlough

1992, Natural Resources Law Institute 1990).

Despite the stated desire to prevent ESA listing by

improving fish runs and significant efforts and

expense to accomplish this in its first decade, NPPC

did not succeed in achieving all its objectives.

Current levels of abundance for many salmonid

species in the basin are at an all-time low even

with extensive hatchery supplementation.

The current status of most Columbia River

salmon stocks is precarious. Snake River summer

and fall chinook and sockeye salmon are listed as

endangered under the ESA. Snake River coho

have not been observed since 1985 and are presumed extinct. These listed species and other

weak stocks are driving fishery management decisions to be increasingly restrictive of other stocks

to protect them. Yet more stocks are proposed for

listing as threatened or endangered, and decisions

in this regard are expected over the next several

years.

Along with salmon, many other species of resident

native and nonnative fish contribute to fish values

in the area. Relict stocks of rare species exist in

limited ranges in eastern Oregon. Bull trout,

white sturgeon, and other widespread species face

loss of habitat and other threats to their continued

existence. Some introduced species are thriving to

the extent that they provide a large amount of

popular recreational activity and at the same time

compete for habitat or directly prey on native

resident species.

Under these circumstances, the value of commercial fisheries in the basin is difficult to calculate.

The basin commercial fisheries are almost exclusively limited to zone 6 and yet fish spawned,
26

reared, and cultured in the basin contribute to

fisheries in the lower Columbia River (zones 1-5)

and to ocean and coastal fisheries from California

to Alaska. Estimates of the contribution to these

fisheries and their values change through time

with abundance, ocean conditions, and other

little-understood factors. In addition, many of the

major fisheries for salmon from the basin are at

historical lows or are fished at low levels to protect

other stocks. Thus, today’s commercial fishing

values based on restricted catches tend to be less

than the value of a fishery managed for strong

stocks and hatchery stocks. Finally, if production

of wild stocks of salmon and other native species

is considered the only appropriate fishery value

to apply in an ecosystem-oriented valuation

approach, the production from hatcheries (70 to

80 percent) would receive low or no value. Perhaps, hatchery fish may even impose an ecosystem

or genetic cost beyond the capital and operational

costs to keep producing them. All these factors

tend to undervalue current salmon stocks relative

to even the recent past. In 1994, commercial

fishing of salmon stocks in the basin was almost

completely curtailed, and 1995 seems to be little

different.

In this analysis, a 13-year period between 1981

and 1993 is averaged to obtain a baseline value for

the recent past and adjusted to 1993 dollars. Data

presented show the trends and range of values

surrounding these averages. Most of the discussion is of aggregate harvests of fish despite the fact

that the fishery is predicated on a geographically

and temporally diverse set of stocks. For more

detailed examination of just the major stocks, see

WDFW and ODFW (1994—commercial fisheries in the Columbia); Palmisano and others

(1993—Washington); Kaczynski and others

(1992—Oregon).

Treaty Fisheries—Commercial

Columbia River treaty fisheries occur almost

exclusively upstream of Bonneville Dam (in zone

6) under management of the CRITFC in concert

with state, regional and Federal entities. As a

result of the treaties negotiated in 1855 and subsequent judicial interpretation, the 1980s witnessed

a major reallocation of commercial fisheries in the

Columbia River basin toward treaty fisheries and

from lower River fisheries to zone 6 fisheries. At

the same time, the declines in the stocks severely

limited the commercial harvests available to treaty

fishing. The fishery uses set (gill) nets to capture

coho and chinook salmon and steelhead (pink and

chum salmon are no longer present in commercial

quantities above Bonneville Dam). No commercial sockeye salmon fishery has been in the Columbia River since 1988, and chinook and coho

fisheries are greatly restricted. Subsistence and

ceremonial harvest of salmon also occurs in the

zone 6 area as well as at traditional sites throughout the basin.

As can be seen in table 3, total treaty harvest of all

commercially harvested species averaged about

$3.0 million (in 1993 dollars) over the 1980s and

early 1990s. The lowest total value of catch in

zone 6 was about $530,000 in 1983 ($757,000 in

1993 dollars) and the high-value catch was $8.2

million in 1988 ($9.8 million in1993 dollars). At

the high point, chinook and steelhead catches were

considerably greater than in other recent years,

and sockeye salmon from the upper Columbia

River in Washington also were abundant. Besides

the salmonids, white sturgeon is the most valuable

treaty commercial fishery with shad and the relatively new commercial fisheries for the introduced

walleye running distant second and third. Legal

commercial sale of steelhead can take place only

under treaty fisheries.

Net economic values for treaty salmon fishing are

assumed to be similar to those of fisheries in the

lower Columbia River and along the coast. No
27

estimates of net economic values for other commercial species seem to be available. Rettig and

McCarl (1984) suggest using a surrogate net

economic value of 10 percent of gross revenues (that

is, costs set equal to 90 percent of gross revenue) for

fisheries under depressed and declining conditions

as exist in these fisheries and 50 percent for fisheries

that are expanding. The Columbia River system

operation review (SOR) adopts the 50-percent

recommendation and applies it in its analyses

(USDE and others 1994d). This translates into an

average annual net economic value for tribal basin

commercial salmon of about $220,000 to $1.1

million ($273,000 to $1.4 million in 1993 dollars).

Tribal commercial fishing in the basin has come

much closer to parity with nontreaty fishing during

the present period (see appendix J). In the 1970s,

treaty fisheries averaged about 25 percent of the

Columbia River landings. By 1990, the average

was closer to the 50-50 split mandated in court

decisions. With respect solely to the ecology of

salmon stocks in the basin, the allocation element

is inconsequential as long as total escapement is

controlled. For user groups, however, the change

in allocation had the effect of shifting the harvest

into the basin and toward the tribal component.

This is seen by some as an advantage for tribal

interests and as a disadvantage for nontribal fishing

interests. A larger proportion of fishing occurring

Table 3—Treaty commercial fishery in the basin (zone 6), 1980 to presenta

White Total, all

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Steelhead sturgeon Shad Walleye species

1981 974.9 12.2 0 119.6 69.0 0 1175.7

1982 704.5 23.2 .7 107.1 45.2 .9 881.7

1983 356.3 .7 4.4 120.7 48.7 .2 531

1984 1,028.5 8.4 85.0 953.8 120.1 .7 2196.5

1985 1,213.5 28.8 170.5 360.1 235.9 .0 2008.8

1986 1,607.7 72.1 19.7 382.9 521.8 .3 2604.5

1987 4,504.5 16.6 219.0 829.2 672.2 1.5 6243

1988 6,483.1 69.2 246.4 1,093.7 266.4 5.9 8164.7

1989 1,831.9 8.9 .1 319.1 269.9 .1 6.1 2436.1

1990 2,082.3 5.6 .0 268.1 242.6 .1 2.2 2600.9

1991 569.9 29.5 .0 187.5 110.7 .0 3.2 900.8

1992 467.9 3.2 .0 307.0 121.2 .1 5.2 904.6

1993 362.3 7.4 .0 134.1 108.4 .4 4.2 616.8

 Average 1,707 22 57 399 218 .8 4 2,408

 Averageb 2,119 27 71 495 270 1 5 2,988

a Ex-vessel value $1,000—nominal dollars unless elsewhere indicated.

b 1993 dollars, 5-year average.

Source: WDFW and ODFW 1994 (rounding may affect some totals).
28

in the basin by tribes may result in a diminution

of the commercial value of salmon caught because

the salmon are captured farther from the sea. The

salmon may be lower in quality and command a

lower price. In addition, there may be greater

transportation costs from the fishing area to the

processor or consumer market because of how

river fisheries are pursued. Counterbalancing

these factors is the ability of tribal fisheries to

supply fresh fish at times when other fisheries are

closed and, thus, may command a higher price.

Similarly, commercial sales of steelhead are solely

available from treaty fisheries. Accordingly, the

price situation is mixed.

Tribal fisheries for noncommercial species in the

basin are not separately reported. For the most

part, these fisheries are subsistence and ceremonial

fisheries including those for salmon. Even these

fisheries are much circumscribed by conservation

efforts by tribes themselves and because of the low

abundance of salmon. In 1992, for example,

tribal subsistence harvests in zone 6 of the basin

were estimated at 5,700 spring chinook, 60 summer chinook, and 2,250 sockeye (CRITFC

1992b). Other subsistence and ceremonial salmon

fisheries occur throughout the basin salmon habitat but are not systematically reported. Native

Americans still fish for and use other species, such

as Pacific lamprey, trout, and squawfish, but this

does not seem to constitute a major tribal fishing

activity in the basin relative to the commercial

fisheries.

Commercial Fisheries

Inriver—Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon

from the basin contribute to the fisheries in the

lower Columbia River and to ocean fisheries.

(Other salmonid and nonsalmonid fisheries exist

in the lower Columbia River and its tributaries.

This treatment focuses on the subset of stocks

that includes basin stocks). Shad and, to a more

limited extent, white sturgeon also have spawning

and rearing grounds in the basin but may be

caught outside the region. As seen in table 4, the

total average annual landed value for commercial

fisheries for basin-related fisheries amounts to

about $5.5 million ($6.8 million in 1993 dollars).

Chinook and coho landings dominate the commercial value, but white sturgeon make a major

contribution. Sockeye salmon contribute sporadically to the value. Shad is a relatively consistent

fishery and highly dependent on the prevailing

price.

Calculating the contribution from the basin to

total salmon production and harvest is problematic. The approach used here is to apply recent

average harvest from the basin by species to the

values for total landings in the lower Columbia

River fisheries. Note that year-to-year differences

exists in the relative rates of the interceptions that

are not accounted for in this study. Based on this

approach, the basin contribution to the total value

of lower Columbia River fisheries can be estimated

at about $3.2 million ($4.0 million in 1993 dollars)

or about 56 percent of the value. Net economic

value for salmon is pegged at a bit less than

$320,000 to about $1.6 million ($400,000 to

$1.9 million in 1993 dollars) by using the method

to estimate fishing costs as a proportion of gross

revenues suggested by Rettig and McCarl (1984)

and the Columbia River SOR (USDE and others

1994d). Even this estimate of net economic value

may be high given the extremely low levels of

harvest and the number of fishing units.

If one were interested in the number of full-time

jobs associated directly with these fisheries, annual

income divided into the gross revenue might

provide a reasonable approximation. According to

one recent source, 80 percent of the number of

vessels gross less than $10,000, and 89 percent

gross less than $20,000 (Washington Department

of Community Development 1988). Assuming an

annual income of $10,000 or $20,000, the related

jobs would be $4.0 million divided by the annual

salary resulting in a range of from 200 to 400 jobs.

Obviously, the number of full-time job equivalents

is highly sensitive to the income level assumed.

Further, the number of participants in the com-
29

Table 4—Nontreaty Columbia River commercial landings, 1980 to presenta

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye White sturgeon Shad Total, all species

1981 1,307.3 512.7 0 449.3 16.7 2,286.0

1982 1,935.1 1,353.9 0 381.2 64.1 3,734.3

1983 843.2 47.1 0 462.4 45.9 1,398.6

1984 1,745.1 1,854.4 37.0 723.7 12.6 4,372.8

1985 1,687.9 1,371.2 128.5 416.4 21.1 3,625.1

1986 2,524.7 6,724.0 7.6 590.8 64.8 9,911.9

1987 8,644.4 2,443.4 164.5 491.2 62.7 11,806.2

1988 13,771.6 5,820.1 111.7 388.6 52.2 20,144.2

1989 2,899.5 2,294.7 0 290.0 28.8 5,513.0

1990 2,197.3 578.3 0 354.2 72.0 3,201.8

1991 1,502.0 2,121.5 0 223.1 27.8 3,874.4

1992 618.6 269.1 0 274.1 71.1 1,232.9

1993 347.1 214.9 0 260.5 64.8 887.3

 Average 3,078.7 1,969.6 34.6 408.1 46.5 5,537.6

 Basin (%) 95b <10c 100d <5e 70f NA

--------------------------- Value-------------------------------

 Basin average 2,925 197 35 20 33 3,210

 Basin average

 in 1993 dollars 3,632 244 42 24 40 3,985

NA = not available.

a Ex-vessel value $1,000—nominal dollars unless elsewhere indicated.

b Based on USDE and others (1994d, appendix 0).

c Author's estimate based on USDE and others (1994b; see appendix C-1 table 19).

d All sockeye in lower basin are from above Bonneville Dam.

e Author estimate based on PSMFC 1992.

f

 Author estimate based on WDFW and ODFW 1994.

Source: Derived from WDFW and ODFW 1994.
30

mercial fisheries is much higher, but the time

involved and the income generated are generally

small under current catch levels. A more precise

estimate of employment generated would require

significant investment of resources and lies beyond

the scope of this study.

Ocean—Basin salmon are caught in mixed-stock

fisheries off Alaska, British Columbia, California,

Oregon, and Washington. As shown in table 5,

fall chinook from the basin contribute the greatest

amount of salmon from Columbia basin stocks to

west coast ocean fisheries in Alaska, Canada, and

the United States. The gross revenue data (high

estimate) correspond to the inriver values in table

4, although the time period differs from which the

annual average is calculated. From comparison

with table 4, ocean harvest values of fall chinook

are considerably greater than the total value of the

inriver harvests.

In table 5, low values represent an estimate of net

economic value based on a net-to-gross ratio of 50

percent for commercial fishing. High values

represent gross revenues in commercial fishing.

The basin proportion of total Columbia River

value is calculated from the ratio of the number of

basin fish caught in each area to total Columbia

River production caught in that area.

Direct economic comparisons do not equate to

numbers of fish because the ocean-caught fish

tend to command a higher price for quality,

whereas inriver harvests represent higher weight

per fish. Still, the basin contributes significantly

to the ocean harvest of fall chinook. Employment-related impacts can be expected to be

slightly higher than inriver fisheries owing to the

greater amount of catch taken there.

Table 5—Estimated annual average value of basin salmon caught in commercial ocean

fisheries, 1987-91a

Spring and

Fall summer

Fishery and area chinook chinook Steelhead Sockeye Total basin Total basin

----------------------- Thousand dollars ----------------------- 1993 dollars

Alaska low 602 0 0 0 602 635

Alaska high 1,203 0 0 0 1,203 1,269

Canada low 1,969 38 0 0 2,007 2,117

Canada high 3,938 78 0 0 4,016 4,236

CA-OR-WA low 433 0 0 0 433 456

CA-OR-WA high 875 1 0 0 875 923

 Total basin low 3,004 38 0 0 3,042 3,209

 Total basin high 6,016 79 0 0 6,095 6,430

 Average basin 4,510 59 -- -- 4,569 4,820

a Value $1,000—nominal dollars unless elsewhere indicated.

Source: USDE and others (1994d; tables 3-2, 3-5, 3-6).
31

The ocean-catch estimates for 1987-91 illustrate

the importance of negotiations under the Pacific

Salmon Treaty to reduce or eliminate interceptions

of fall chinook salmon off Alaska and Canada to

rebuild basin runs. United States west coast interceptions of the fall chinook are relatively smaller

than in other areas in Canada and off Alaska,

largely because of management measures under

the Pacific Marine Fisheries Council. Spring and

summer chinook stocks seem to escape interception in the northern fisheries as do steelhead and

sockeye. While these reference data were being

collected, considerable controversy was raging

about interceptions of U.S. salmon in high seas

drift net fisheries in the North Pacific. Reports

from official observers monitoring these high seas

fleets under bilateral agreements with the United

States seem to indicate that during the period

of observation, salmon interception rates were

lower than most perceived them to be. High

seas driftnet fishing was banned in 1992

(Burke 1994).

Looking more broadly at the net economic values

in the commercial salmon fisheries, the cost factors

relevant to understanding the net economic benefit to the Nation would include costs of hatchery

construction and operation as well as other management and mitigation activities (Huppert and

Fluharty 1995). Presently, these costs relative to

the commercial value of salmon seem large. Obviously, increased abundance of salmon from recovered populations and more successful fish hatchery

programs would tend to balance this ratio better

than is now the case. In addition, consideration of

other types of value associated with commercial

salmon runs and the benefits from maintaining

suitable habitat also would tend to balance the

ratio (Alkire 1993). It is critical to know that

commercial fishing values are not the only relevant

statement of values for fish in the basin. Also,

direct employment in fish harvesting and processing is not the only measure of employment. Many

biologists, hatchery managers, enforcement agents,

and fishery managers also are employed in the

fishery. It is ironic that employment in indirect

aspects of the fishery may be increasing as jobs

directly related to fishing are declining.

Translating these commercial values for salmon

and other fish into employment and income

generation for basin communities in a systematic

fashion goes beyond the scope of this study. Separate analysis of treaty fisheries as well as nontreaty

fishing would have to be performed to obtain

suitable data. For the basin, there is no source of

separate commercial fisheries employment (harvesting, processing, and marketing), but currently,

it is reasonable to assert that it is a small component of total employment in the region, although

locally significant. Little commercial fishing is

allowed or possible on the small stocks sizes as seen

in table 3. Employment in fisheries is small (table

4), and in 1995, the salmon component was

nearly zero because of low stock abundance.

Other species are only marginally produced in the

basin. The gross income produced from basin

fisheries in recent times averages (tables 3, 4, and

5) about $12 million annually but is much below

that in 1995. Calculation of indirect effects is

complicated by the need to use different coefficients for different species, gear types, and harvest

locations as illustrated in a recent study of the

ocean fisheries of Oregon (Radtke and Davis

1994).

Recreational Fisheries

Recreational fisheries in the basin are less well

documented than are commercial fisheries. This

is, in part, a function of their complexity and the

difficulty in monitoring the activity levels, and

also a function of a perceived low value, in general,

of acquiring this information. In the basin, much

of the recreational activity occurs on public lands

and waters. Free access for fishing tends to equate

to low value to users and land managers alike;

access, however, is only one part of the equation.

Purchases of food, equipment, lodging, transportation, licenses, and other accouterments of recreational fishing add up to a significant expenditure.
32

In some areas, whole towns, resorts, businesses,

and individuals are highly dependent on sale of

services to people who participate in recreational

fishing. Change in consumer preferences, catch

rates, and regulations all may affect the survival

and success of businesses that are only indirectly

associated with fishing (Radtke and Davis 1994).

The focus for this analysis is on the primary economic impacts associated with recreational fishing.

In this section, various components of recreational

fishing values are assessed. The key economic valuation issue is linking estimates of use of recreational

fishing with estimates of consumer surplus across a

large geographic area with diverse types of fishing

opportunities. This section starts with review of

existing studies of consumer surplus and then seeks

to apply selected ones as appropriate. The only

synoptic approach to fishing participation rates and

expenditures, as opposed to economic values, for all

areas and fisheries of the basin is found in the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS

1985, 1993). The Columbia River SOR is another source of information on recreational fisheries associated mostly with Federal water resource

projects in the basin (USDE and others 1994d).

Preliminary analyses of use and value are available

in the SOR draft environmental impact statement.

Results of a formal new recreation value survey

and analysis undertaken as part of the SOR work

were not available at the time of this writing.

On completion, that study is likely to represent

the most authoritative and timely basis for net

economic value of many types of recreational

fisheries in the basin. The states of Idaho, Montana,

Oregon, and Washington also have sought to

assess the value of recreational fisheries as well as

to obtain information for specific management

issues in recent years.

Several caveats may be in order at the beginning of

the examination of recreational fishing:

First, there is no explicit discussion of tribal recreational fisheries. Traditional fishing and subsistence

food gathering activities by Native Americans may

be carried out by using equipment and practices

that seem comparable to recreational fishing taking place at the same time and place by nonIndians. This is not to say that Native Americans

do not participate in recreational fishing, but it

does not make the traditional fishing a recreational

activity; that is, fishing occupies a different place

in the culture of Native Americans than it does in

that of non-Indians. Because relatively little study

has been accorded noncommercial fishing by

tribes in the basin today, however, there is little

basis for reporting on that activity in this study.

Second, the diversity of recreational fishing activities (anadromous, resident, warm water, cold

water, ice fishing, and specialized gear fisheries—

flies, plugs, etc.) and the vast geographic scale of

the basin make it difficult to provide detailed

treatment of each. Also, the lack of comprehensive surveys is limiting. The economic values of

recreational fishing are significant, diverse, and

pervasive in the basin.

Economic evaluation—Economic evaluation for

recreational fishing depends on clear specification

of measures of use reflected in estimates of consumer surplus and recreational expenditure patterns. Ideally, monitoring of use and survey of

economic parameters occurs simultaneously. In

practice, the expense and logistics of performing

such studies on the time and space scales necessary

for management make it unusual for the ideal

approach to be used. Instead, it is common to

seek the most comparable analysis of consumer

surplus for the geographic area and activity and

apply it to the question under examination. In a

descriptive analysis of a large region with diverse

fisheries, such as the present study, it is useful to

compare existing studies of net economic values

for fishing. Walsh and others (1988) present a

comprehensive analysis of 88 TCM or CVM

studies (table 6). These values cover various surveyed locations and fisheries. Each study has been

screened for adherence to fundamental economic

tenets. Thus, any major deviation from the range

reported should be explained by special circumstances, such as regional differences, high-quality

fisheries, etc.
33

Most of the studies in Walsh and others (1988) are

somewhat dated. It may be bordering on inappropriate to update them by using the GNP price

deflator without further examination. Recent

derived and empirical studies from the Pacific

Northwest therefore are reviewed in table 7, and

their results can be compared with those of Walsh

and others (1988). Most studies are built from

prior studies and simply produced by using some

price deflator. Thus, until the SOR work is completed, there is no more definitive study available.

Fish and Wildlife Service survey—Estimates of

the number of persons participating in recreational

fisheries nationally are made by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. The "National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation" is

performed at about 5-year intervals (see appendix

L). The latest available survey is for 1991 (USDI

FWS 1993). State data were available for this

analysis, but a breakdown by wildlife management

regions was not available. The wildlife management regions from the 1985 survey by state

(USDI FWS 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d) therefore were used to obtain an approximation of

recreational fishing participation in the basin.

It was assumed that the relative proportions of

fishing activity remain the same by state and

wildlife management area. This assumption is

reasonable in light of the alternatives; the mid1980s, however, show a strong increase in several

salmon populations in the basin, which may have

skewed participation rates upward when compared

to the sharp declines in salmon abundance in

1990. Another confounding factor could be the

increased popularity of walleye sports fishing in

the Columbia River in Washington. In addition,

displacement of effort formerly in saltwater and

freshwater salmon fishing into warm water fisheries may have occurred in Oregon and Washington.

Data confirming these considerations are mostly

anecdotal although initiatives in Washington to

obtain better funding for staff and research make a

compelling argument for greater recognition of the

warm water fisheries in the basin.12 The final issue

is that improvements in the technical aspects of

methods used in the 1991 survey differ somewhat

from those used in the 1985 survey but not in

ways that affect the utility of the assumption

made.

Table 6—Estimates of fishing net economic values by travel cost model and contingent

valuation method demand studies

Number Standard 95-percent Mean

Type of of error confidence 1993

fishing estimates Mean Median of mean interval Range dollarsa

Cold water 39 30.62 28.49 3.24 24.27-36.97 10.07-118.12 38.03

Warm water 23 23.55 22.5 2.46 18.73-28.37 8.13-59.42 29.25

Anadromous 9 54.01 46.24 11.01 32.43-75.59 16.85-127.26 67.08

Salt water 17 72.49 53.35 14.05 44.95-100.03 18.69-219.65 90.03

 All fishing 88 39.25 29.59 3.80 31.80-46.70 8.13-219.65 48.75

a 1987 dollars converted to 1993 dollars by using GNP price deflator.

Source: Walsh and others 1988.

12Central Washington Fish Advisory Committee. [n.d.]. Lets

[sic] stop these tax dollars . . . from getting away. Moses Lake,

WA. 16 p. Draft on file with author.
34

Table 7—Estimates of fishing net economic values in the Pacific Northwesta

Estimate

Nominal 1993

Source or location Year Fishery Method dollars dollars

USDE and others 1994b 1994 A Modification of Walsh and 50.50 low 50.50 low

 others 1988 [AD] 63.50 high 63.50 high

USDE and others 1994c 1993 R Modification of other studies; 24.90 low 24.90 low

 new analysis pending 44.00 high 44.00 high

USDA FS 1990 1989 CW+A Empirical studies and Reg. 6 [AD]

WW review of literature [AD] 22.47 AF 25.73

[WFUD] 23.00 CW 26.33

12.00 WW 13.74

Reg. 1 [AD]

Reg. 4 [AD]

15.59 AF 17.85

16.00 CW 18.32

12.00 WW 13.74

Montana:

 Duffield and others 1987 1985 Lake TCM 89.00 L [T] 117.12

Stream 70.00 L [D] 92.12

CW 113.00 S [T] 148.71

102.00 S [D] 134.23

 Duffield and Allen 1988 1986 CW CVM survey 117.00 150

River

Trout

Oregon:

 Davis and Radke 1991 1988, AF Expenditure 42.15 [D]

1989

Washington:

 Southwick Associates 1992 1991 AF Expenditure Aggregate expenditure

 Olson and others 1991 1989 A, St CVM sport and existence 90.08 A 103.14

Columbia basin 46.36 St 53.08

 Department of Community 1988 A, Stur. NEV Columbia basin 30.75 A 36.90

 Development 1988 (and other regions) (avg.)

 Mongillo and Hahn 1988 1987 RGF Angler survey (not econ.)

a A = Anadromous; CW = cold water; WW = warm water; SW = saltwater; AF = all fishing; R = reservoir; L = lake;

S = stream; St = steelhead; Stur. = sturgeon; RGF = resident game fish. NEV = net economic value ; [AD] = activity day;

[WFUD] = wildlife and fish user day; [D] = any part of a day; [T] = trip; TCM = travel cost model;

CVM = contingent valuation method.
35

A summary of survey results relative to freshwater

recreation in the basin is presented in table 8. In

the four-state region, there are about 2 million

anglers over the age of 16, of which about 75

percent are residents of the states and 25 percent

are nonresidents. Participation seems relatively

proportional to total state population, except

nonresidents boost Idaho and Montana totals

considerably. Washington has the lowest proportion of nonresident participation (8 percent),

whereas Montana's nonresident fishing anglers (52

percent) exceed resident participation. More than

one-third of anglers in Idaho are nonresident, and

in Oregon about one-quarter are nonresident. In

the basin, the number of anglers in the wildlife

management regions is about 1.1 million, about

70 to 30 percent residents and nonresidents,

respectively. The statewide distribution of resident

versus nonresident participation remains close

(within a few percentage points) to the general

participation rates by states except for Washington

where the nonresident angler days is double the

proportion of nonresident anglers in the basin.

Total days fishing (any part of a day spent fishing)

in the four-state region amount to 21.4 million

days. Of the total days fishing, residents fished on

more days than did nonresident anglers. This

result is consistent with the nonresident fishing

being associated with travel. About half of the

fishing days in the four-state region are spent in

the basin. The even geographic split between days

fishing in eastern and western Oregon and Washington is somewhat surprising given the larger

population distributed in the western portions of

these states. This observation probably reflects the

popularity of fishing trips and vacations to the

warmer, drier, and more diverse fishing opportunities in the eastern parts of the states. The relatively

high number of Montana resident fishing days in

the basin also may reflect a preference to travel to

the high-quality fishing country in western

Montana.

Expenditures for fishing include money spent on

fishing trips and recreational equipment and take

into account expenditures by the individuals themselves and the value of gifts they received. Total

fishing-related expenditures amounted to $1.7

billion in the four-state region. Calculation of the

amount of those expenditures occurring in the

basin was done by allocating the expenditures in

proportion to the number of anglers participating

in fishing in the wildlife management regions.

The result is that about $725 million was spent on

fishing in the basin in 1991 ($764 million in 1993

dollars). It may be that this tends to underrepresent

expenditures in the basin based on freshwater

angling taken by itself. This approach was necessary because only statewide fishing expenditures

were available. For Oregon and Washington,

statewide fishing expenditures included expenditures for saltwater and freshwater fishing. Thus,

the number of anglers from those states and nonresidents increased along with the number of

fishing days. Without further information, it is

not possible to arrive at a more precise estimate

of basin expenditure.

Recreational fishing—salmon—The U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service survey does not adequately

distinguish recreational fisheries for salmon and

steelhead from other saltwater and freshwater

fishing. Recreation data for the basin are shown

in table 9. The inriver recreational fishery in the

basin is largely made up of fall chinook and steelhead with a few spring and summer chinook as

well. The total value (in 1993 dollars) of the

inriver recreational salmonid fishery is estimated

to be between $7.4 and $9.2 million dollars based

on the catch years 1987-91. Since that time,

harvests have declined so that the current value

is considerably less than that of the early 1990s

assuming no change in consumer surplus measured as willingness-to-pay or TCMs.
36

Table 8—Freshwater fisheries-associated recreation in the basin,1991

Parameter Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total no.

Total anglers: 365,000 342,000 605,000 681,000 1,993,000

 Resident no. 232,000 164,000 457,000 626,000 1,479,000

 Resident (%) 64 48 76 92 74

 Nonresident no. 133,000 178,000 147,000 56,000 514,000

 Nonresident (%) 36 52 24 8 26

Basin anglers:a 365,000 135,774 225,060 397,023 1,122,857

 Resident no. 232,000 68,430 178,022 329,926 808,378

 Resident (%) 64.0 50.7 79.1 83.1 72.0

 Nonresident no. 133,000 67,344 47,037 67,097 314,478

 Nonresident (%) 36 50 20 17 28

Total days fishing: 3,157,000 3,156,000 6,490,000 8,583,000 21,386,000

 Resident no. 2,495,000 1,872,000 5,817,000 8,285,000 18,469,000

 Resident (%) 79 59 90 97 86

 Nonresident no. 662,000 1,284,000 674,000 298,000 2,918,000

 Nonresident (%) 21 41 10 3 14

Basin days fishing: 3,157,000 959,424 1,518,660 4,617,654 10,252,738

 Resident no. 2,495,000 767,539 1,131,401 4,128,182 8,522,122

 Resident (%) 79 80 74 89 83

 Nonresident no. 662,000 191,885 387,259 489,471 1,730,615

 Nonresident (%) 21 20 25 11 17

Total fishing expenditures:

 $1,000b 145,456 71,200 461,297 1,009,309 1,687,262

 Total anglers 365,000 342,000 717,000c 995,000c 2,419,000

 Basin anglers 365,000 135,774 225,060 397,023 1,122,857

 Basin R/NR 100 40 31 40 46

Basin fishing expenditures

 $1,000 145,456 28,266 144,847 404,714 723,283d

Basin fishing expenditures

 in 1993 dollars 153,456 29,820 152,813 426,973 763,063d

a Basin values assume the pattern and distribution of activities remains proportional to 1985 data (USDI FWS 1989a, 1989b,

1989c, 1989d, table 23; USDI FWS 1993, table 65).

b Assigns same value to all types of fishing. Basin values for salmon, freshwater (cold and warm water) and resident and

nonresident not distinguished in original source (USDI FWS 1993, table 68).

c Total fresh water and saltwater anglers for Oregon and Washington (USDI FWS 1993 table 60).

d Sum of total weightings.
37

This assumption may be open to challenge as the

basin salmon resource becomes more scarce. A

new household survey of fish values in the basin is

underway as part of the Columbia River SOR

(USDE and others 1994b).

Fall chinook salmon in the basin contribute substantially to recreational fisheries in the lower

Columbia River, U.S. west coast, British Columbia, and Alaska (table 9). The lower Columbia

River harvests of basin fall chinook (not shown)

are about equal in value to those harvested above

Bonneville Dam. The U.S. coast harvests of fall

chinook come to a large extent (ca. 90 percent)

from the basin. The value of interceptions by

Canada of fall chinook from Columbia River

stocks is almost exclusively (96 percent) from

basin stocks. Interceptions by Alaska of Columbia

River stocks also have a high percentage (90 percent) from the basin. The total contribution of

basin stocks to recreational fish values (in 1993

dollars) in the Pacific Ocean is estimated to be

between $9.1 and $11.3 million based on the

catch years 1987-91. Since that time, harvests

have declined to a point that the current value is

considerably less than that of the early 1990s as

noted above.

Most of the recreational harvests of basin salmonids occur outside the area. For upriver fishing

interests, especially in Idaho, the harvest of steelhead has been particularly valuable as seen in table

10. Although the present level of abundance of

summer steelhead is low in comparison with

earlier times, the numbers have increased over the

last 15 years.

Table 9—Estimated annual average value of basin salmon caught in recreational fisheries,

1987-91 (dollars × 1,000 − nominal dollars)a

Spring and

Fall summer Total Total basin

Fishery and area chinook chinook Steelhead Sockeye basin 1993 dollars

Alaska low 102 0 0 0 102 108

Alaska high 130 0 0 0 130 137

Canada low 461 0 0 0 461 486

Canada high 586 0 0 0 586 618

CA-OR-WA low 1,044 0 0 0 1,044 1,101

CA-OR-WA high 1,314 0 0 0 1,314 1,386

Inriver low 615 10 6,430 0 7,055 7,443

Inriver high 620 10 8,080 0 8,710 9,189

Total basin low 2,222 10 6,430 0 8,662 9,138

Total basin high 2,650 10 8,080 0 10,740 11,331

a Low values represent a recreation day value of $50.50, and high values represent a recreation day value of $63.50. These

values are consumer surplus values based on other studies described in the source. Basin proportion of total Columbia River

value calculated from ratio of numbers of basin origin fish caught in each area to total Columbia River production caught in that

area.

Source: USDE and others 1994d (tables 3-3, 3-5, 3-6).
38

Table 10—Recreational catch of upriver summer steelhead in main-stem Columbia and tributaries,1979-93

Run year Idaho Oregon Washington Total

In thousands

1979-80 2.8 7.0 11.9 21.7

1980-81 12.1 11.5 13.4 37.0

1981-82 10.9 11.2 21.9 44.0

1982-83 27.9 9.9 16.3 54.1

1983-84 28.1 14.0 23.3 65.4

1984-85 32.0 16.1 35.1 83.5

1985-86 32.6 18.5 36.8 87.9

1986-87 47.9 25.4 40.6 113.9

1987-88 18.0 26.3 25.2 69.5

1988-89 23.5 26.5 30.2 80.2

1989-90 48.9 27.4 32.8 109.1

1990-91 19.0 18.5 23.8 61.3

1991-92 28.6 36.2 36.6 101.4

1992-93 44.7 (35.0)a 52.2 (131.9)a

a Figures in parentheses are preliminary. Please note that Nota benna includes main-stem harvests of lower river steelhead

producing tributaries.

Sources: WDFW and ODFW 1994.

Recreational fishing—other species—Recreational fisheries for white sturgeon, walleye, and

shad exist in the basin and the lower Columbia

River. Data on harvests but not levels of participation and value of recreational fisheries are available. As shown in table 11, data are scant but

indicative of increasing levels of effort targeting

species other than salmonids. White sturgeon

have at times become the prime recreational fishery target in the lower Columbia River (Department of Community Development 1988). Most

of the sport fishery takes place below Bonneville

Dam. Above Bonneville Dam, the data are spotty

but show small harvests by sports fishing in the

reservoirs of the upper Columbia and lower Snake

Rivers. Sturgeon angling in the Idaho portion of

the Snake River has been under catch-and-release

management since 1970 and has been classified by

Idaho as a species of special concern. The Bureau

of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service give special management status to

white sturgeon (PSMFC 1992). The white sturgeon population in the Kootenai River has recently been listed as endangered under the ESA.

Walleye and shad are not native to the basin; both,

however, are well established and support recreational fisheries. Shad in the lower Columbia

River are quite popular as a sport fishing target.
39

Table 11—Recreational harvest of nonsalmonid species in the basin

Walleye harvest Walleye Walleye Walleye

White (survey) harvest harvest survey

Year sturgeon Bonneville Dam The Dalles pool John Day pool total

1980 5.0

1981 5.0 0 2,062 164 2,226

1982 5.0 NS NS NS NS

1983 5.0 NS NS 463 (463)a

1984 5.0 NS NS 349 (349)

1985 5.0 NS NS 186 (186)

1986 5.0 NS NS 291 (291)

1987 6.7 NS 1,660 NS (1,660)

1988 3.3 394 3,480 NS (3,874)

1989 4.0 1,066 7,556 1,718 10,340

1990 3.1 1,351 NS 3,088 (4,439)

1991 2.6 NS NS 2,207 (2,207)

1992 2.0 100 1,000 1,780 2,880

1993 2.6 82 2,200 2,747 5,028

a Parentheses indicate incomplete data.

NS = no survey.

Source: WDFW and ODFW 1994.

The extent to which sport shad fisheries will

develop in the basin remains to be seen (Hislop

1994). The time adult shad spend in the river

severely limits the sport fishery. Walleye, introduced in the upper Columbia River in the 1940s

are spreading downstream and are attracting considerable recreational fishing interest (Beath 1991;

Bisbee 1981; Hartzell 1991; Sullivan 1990, 1993).

The Columbia River and lakes in the basin seem

to provide ideal habitat for walleye, and catches

close to the world record have been made.

Reservoir recreational fisheries—The transformation of a major part of the basin main-stem

river habitat to reservoirs has altered the type of

recreation available to sport fishing. Reservoir

fishing is a significant component of the recreational fishing spectrum as shown in table 12.

Data on visitation are not maintained for all

reservoirs, but where counts are made, reservoir

fishing days constitute a major recreational activity. The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River is

a 55-mile-long stretch of undammed river, although its hydrology is much altered by releases

from dams upstream. It offers the closest recreational fishing experience to that before the dams.

As seen in table 12, it provides a small but unique

portion of the Columbia River recreation.
40

Table 12—Fishing activity and value at main-stem Columbia River basin dams in the basin

Year Reservoir Visitor days Fishing Fishing value, Fishing value,

Dams built length 5-yr avg. days low high

Miles --- Thousand days --- -------Thousand dollars -------

Federal:

 Bonneville-Lake Bonneville* 1938 45 3,354.1 1,166.2 29,038.4 51,312.8

 Dalles-Lake Celilo* 1957 31 2,170.2 289.1 7,198.6 12,720.4

 John Day-Lake Umatilla* 1968 76 2,300.0 507.0 12,624.3 22,308.0

 McNary-Lake Wallula* 1953 61 2,971.2 379.4 9,447.1 16,693.6

 Chief Joseph-Lake Rufus Woods 1955 51 356.6 79.0 1,967.1 3,476.0

 Grand Coulee-Lake Roosevelt 1941 151 1,837.9 241.7 6,018.3 10,634.8

 Ice Harbor-Lake Sacajawea* 1961 32 467.0 76.8 1,912.3 3,379.2

 Lower Monumental-Lake West* 1969 29 141.4 30.9 769.4 1,359.6

 Little Goose-Lake Bryan* 1970 37 238.5 26.0 647.4 1,144.0

 Lower Granite-L. Granite Lake* 1975 39 1,437.1 155.4 3,869.5 6,837.6

 Total 15,274.0 2,951.5 73,492.3 129,866.0

Non-Federal:

 Wells* 1967 30 NA

 Rocky Reach* 1961 42 621.8

 Rock Island* 1933 21 860.1

 Wanapum* 1964 38 NA

 Priest Rapids* 1959 18 NA

 Hells Canyon NRA 1967 22 43.5

 Oxbow 1961 12 NA

 Brownlee 1958 57 NA

Other:

 Hanford Reach

 (controlled river reach)* 55 154.9 14.8 368.5 651.2

* = adult fish passage.

Source: Visitor days for recreation are from USDE and others 1994c. (Low consumer surplus recreation value is $24.90, and

high value is $44.00 per activity day.) Fish passage status and reservoir length are from WDFW and ODFW 1992. Estimates

of fishing days generated by Chuck Korson, SOR Recreation Working Group, June 1994, based on data from U.S. Army Corp

of Engineers (USCOE), USDA FS, National Park Service, and Bureau of Reclamation, with USCOE load factors applied.
41

Other Fish Valuation Issues

To this point, tribal, sport, commercial, and recreational fisheries have been examined. These,

however, do not fully capture the diverse fishery

values associated with fish in the basin. In this

section, examples of other fish valuation issues are

presented, including revenues from fishing guide

permits, the concept of value of genetic resources,

problems of illegal fishing, the values associated

with fish viewing, as well as fish festivals and

competitions, compensation for lost fishing

opportunities, and effects of introduced species.

This is not an exhaustive examination of any of

these topics, but it is intended to be indicative

of the various fish values existing in the basin.

Fish guide permits—One measure of the value of

fishing is the revenue derived from the licensing of

fishing guides on public lands in the basin. Preliminary data13 indicate that the amount of such

revenue is modest, and yet the number of permits

belies a significant value associated with guided

fishing on public lands (table 13). Much of this

value is already reported in the freshwater fish

valuation above; the revenue therefore should not

be seen as additive to earlier numbers.

Genetic resources—Most economic valuation of

genetic resources tends to focus on the potential

value of pharmaceutical values or biotechnology

values for commercial production from selected

genes (Pearce 1993, Swanson and Barbier 1992).

Seen more broadly, genetic resources are generally

treated as public goods that provide benefits

through use, such as commercial, recreational,

tribal fisheries, and fish augmentation through

hatchery production or transplantation of species.

In other senses, genetic resources are public goods

in that society allows free collection of gene materials for other purposes (study, experimentation,

etc.) and for nonconsumptive use in the form of

ecotourism (that is, fish viewing at passage facilities

in situ). In assigning value to genetic resources,

there is a problem of separating out the components of value associated with the genetic material

itself from other ways of valuing the plants and

animals in which it is incorporated (National

Council on Gene Resources 1982).

Loss of genetic diversity in fish stocks in the basin

can occur in native anadromous and resident fish

as well as hatchery production and introduced

species. Most attention has been given to the

genetic values associated with endangered salmonids but, on one dimension, an irreversible loss of

genetic diversity applies equally to all species. The

main question for economic analysis is how to

13 Personal communication. 1994. Amy Molitor, economist,

545 Stone Creek Place, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Table 13—Fish guide permits and revenues from public lands in the basin, 1994

Agency Number of permits Revenue ($)

Bureau of Land Management 130 26,482a

USDA Forest Service 23 11,026

National Park Service 2 200

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 13,050 0b

 Total 13,205 37,708

a 1993.

b Self-issue permit, self-guided and no fee charged.

Source: Personal communication, 1994. Amy Molitor, economist Walla Walla, WA 99362; preliminary data

Eastside Forest Ecosystem Analysis Team 1995.
42

value genetic diversity—for its intrinsic value or

for its use value, or both. It is relatively simple to

place use values on a fish species. Harvest value

and even nonmarket values associated with its

mere existence are within the range of economic

methods. As commercial stocks decline, however,

the use values decline also, especially for species

such as salmon for which there are many other

sources of supply. Should a noncommercial fish

be treated as having zero value? What about its

recreational value? Straight economic answers

would tend to arrive at low values for scarce genetic stocks (from a use value perspective). Some

involved in the debate over fish protection might

argue, the scarcer the stock, the more likely the

value borders on infinite. In their view, because it

is impossible to replace the genetic material in fish

that have evolved over eons and are represented in

fish spawning in a single stream, the value must be

large. Somewhat countering this point of view is

the observation that many salmon species have

become extinct in the last century in the basin,

and yet most would regard the impact on society

to be negligible (except in the abstract).

The incredible efforts the National Marine Fishery

Service is making to maintain the genetic integrity

of the Snake River sockeye salmon found only in

Redfish Lake, Idaho, is an illustration of how

costly it is to attempt to save a salmon species

from extinction. The broodstock program alone is

estimated to cost from $3 to $5 million per year

over at least a 7-year period (Huppert and

Fluharty 1995). From another perspective, the

transfer of salmon from the Pacific Northwest to

the Great Lakes in the Midwest resulted in establishment of a multimillion dollar recreational

fishery. The adaptability of the transplanted

salmon stocks, in this case, was remarkable. Many

other transplants have not been so successful.

Thus, the issue of valuation of genetic resources is

only starting to gain attention and is far from

being resolved.

Illegal fishing—Illegal fishing has posed problems

in the basin. Salmon and sturgeon have been the

main species poached. Despite a strong ethic of

sporting behavior that prevails in the tribal, commercial, and recreational fishing communities,

some fishers may occasionally ignore limits and

seasons. Publicized planting of some lakes predictably leads to illegal sport fishing activity such as

reported when nine anglers were caught with 140

German brown trout (Yuasa 1994). Sometimes,

lack of knowledge of fishing regulations and inability to identify species of fish or to navigate may

result in inadvertent illegal harvest of fish. High

unemployment in rural communities may provide

some incentive to fish illegally for subsistence. It

can, however, be quite lucrative as two recreational

fishers learned by selling $20,000 of illegal salmon

to restaurants. When apprehended and tried, one

was sentenced to 30 days in jail, and the other

paid a fine of $1,000 and received a 1-year suspended sentence (Dietrich 1995). Still, recreational poaching does not seem to be a major fish

conservation issue in the basin.

Commercial poaching can be significant and may

be so severe that it impacts the success of management programs. Probably the most egregious case

in recent years is the poaching of sturgeon in the

mid-Columbia for sale of caviar. Catch of an

estimated 350 large female sturgeon between 1985

and 1990 was estimated to have been required to

procure the estimated 3,200 pounds of caviar

worth $240,000 that one poacher is thought to

have accomplished. This amount dwarfs the annual

legal harvest of sturgeon roe in Washington, which

averages 650 pounds (Lewis 1993). It is not

inconceivable that this level of activity has slowed

recovery of mid-Columbia sturgeon stocks. With

respect to salmon, the commercial operations tend

to be composed of individuals catching and selling

fish out of season. Typically, the sale is to a restaurant or retailer who may or may not know the

origins of the fish. Sturgeon poaching is more

limited than salmon in the number of individuals

involved, but the quantities of caviar (sturgeon

roe) have made for a lucrative trade.
43

No systematic estimates of poaching activities on

salmon exists; an indication of the potential scale

of activity, however, is shown by a poaching operation investigated several years ago where it was

found that more than 50 tons of illegal Columbia

River salmon were offered on the market.

Fisheries enforcement is carried out by state police,

Federal agents, and CRITFC and tribal enforcement officers. A special antipoaching Columbia

River Task Force has been formed among state and

Federal agencies and the tribes with funding from

a 3-year grant of $10 million from Bonneville

Power Administration (Norton 1992). Funding

for the enforcement activities totals about $3.5

million annually (Huppert and Fluharty 1995).

In recent years, Columbia River fishery violations

for which arrests resulted were about 1,750 cases

with 97 percent involving fishing by non-Indians

and only 3 percent being tribal fishing. In June

1994, a special-emphasis patrol in the basin (zone

6) found 17 non-Indians fishing out of compliance. These fisheries violations carry penalties as

severe as $2,500 in fines and a year in jail for

serious cases (Craig 1994). Also, the level of

expenditure contributes substantially to the

employment of several enforcement personnel

with attendant economic spinoff effects.

Nonconsumptive fisheries recreation—The saga

of the salmon appeals to many who fish and even

those who do not. Viewing salmon spawning in

rivers and streams is popular but not nearly as well

attended as viewing stations at dams and fish

ladders. These facilities on major Columbia River

dams account for millions of visits per year. This

number is vastly more than the number of licenses

issued for fishing. Valuation of these visits is

methodologically difficult because they are frequently done as part of other tourist activities;

some data, however, are available. Table 14 shows

estimates for the amount of participation in

nonconsumptive recreation related to fishing.

This includes watching people fish, visiting hatcheries, and other activities associated with fish in

addition to fish viewing at dams. There are some

interesting patterns to note. In the basin, there

are about 210,000 visits related to fish with total

spending of nearly $80 million (in 1993 dollars)

annually. In Montana, Idaho, and Oregon, nonresidents make up a large portion of the nonconsumptive-fisheries oriented recreation in contrast

to Washington where the residents outnumber the

visitors in participation. Nonconsumptive fisheries recreation in the basin attracts a relatively small

(8 to 14 percent) portion of all such recreation,

and yet it can still represent a significant amount

of economic activity.

Fish festivals and competitions—Fish festivals

are currently celebrated throughout eastern

Oregon and Washington. Leavenworth and

Wenatchee, for example, sponsor salmon-day

festivals as do other communities. No comprehensive listing of these festivals is available.

Compensation—As a result of treaty obligations,

tribes are due compensation for "subordination" of

fishing rights or loss of fishing access. This could be

considered a partial measure of value of the fishery.

It is key to point out that this is not compensation

for the fishing right—that is unchanged. However, the right of access and fishing in a usual and

accustomed place is lost. When most of the basin

dams were constructed, compensation occurred

only for property inundated by the dams. No

systematic analysis of this issue is available.

When The Dalles Dam was built and flooded, the

most important Native American fishing site in

North America—Celilo Falls, a payment for "subordination" of usual and accustomed fishing sites

to hydropower and other interests was negotiated

with four mid-Columbia tribes (Yakama, Nez

Perce, Umatilla, and Warm Springs). It amounted

to the estimated "capitalization at 3 percent of the

total value of the fish caught by the Indians in an

average year and sold commercially or to tourists

or used for subsistence"—a total of about $26.9
44

Table 14—Primary nonconsumptive (NC) fisheries-oriented recreation in 1991 in the basin

Parameter Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total number

Total participants: 382,000 558,000 882,000 1,058,000 2,880,000

 Residents 194,000 173,000 479,000 800,000 1,646,000

 Residents (%) 51 31 54 76 57

 Nonresidents 188,000 384,000 402,000 258,000 1,232,000

 Nonresidents (%) 49 69 46 24 43

Basin participants: 382,000 221,526 328,104 569,204 1,500,834

 Percentage of total 100 39.7 37.2 53.8 52.1

 Fish related 49,660 28,798 26,248 102,457 207,163

 Participationa percentage 13 13 8 18 14

Total expenditure ($1,000): 68,017 102,205 362,111 511,218 1,043,551

 Trip related 39,563 34,174 119,014 298,941 491,692

 Equipment 25,171 63,986 227,909 178,044 495,110

 Other 2,283 4,045 8,449 34,232 49,009

Basin (%) 100 39.7 37.2 53.8 49.7

Expenditure of basin NCb:

 Total ($1,000) 68,017 40,575 134,705 275,035 518,332

 Fish related (%) 13 13 8 18 14.4

Basin fish related NCb:

 Expenditures ($1,000) 8,842 5,275 10,776 49,506 74,399

 Percentage of fish related 12 7 14 67 100

1993 dollars 9,328 5,565 11,369 52,229 78,491

a Fish related nonconsumptive recreation is calculated assuming the rate of primary residential (USDI FWS 1989a,1989b,

1989c,1989d, table 28) activities in 1985 for each state is representative of primary nonresidential activities. Total attributable to

basin in state is assumed to be the same proportion as fisheries in the basin in the state.

b Noncomsumptive expenditure data derived by applying fish related percentage of primary residential activity based on 1985

data (USDI FWS 1989a,1989b,1989c,1989d, table 28) to total expenditure data.

Source: USDI FWS 1993, tables 71 and 73.
45

million (Whitefoot v. United States, Oregon State

University 1978). This did not compensate for

the right to fish, and fishing by the mid-Columbia

River tribes continues. It can be anticipated that

when The Dalles Dam is relicensed, there will be

an opportunity to obtain compensation for continuing impacts of the dams on fisheries where

these cannot be mitigated.

The Colville Confederated Tribes, received

$60,000 for the inundation of several thousand

acres of lands by construction and filling of Grand

Coulee Dam in the late 1930s. In 1994, settlement of claims over loss of fishing access, riverbed,

and free-flowing river was obtained. The Colville

tribes received a lump sum payment of $53 million and will continue to receive at least $15.25

million per year in perpetuity. Tribal Chairman

Eddie Palmanteer clearly states the tribal view with

respect to compensation: "No amount of money

can truly compensate the tribes and its members,

especially our elders, for the way of life that Grand

Coulee Dam took away, and to that extent the

settlement is inadequate" (Seattle Times 1994).

A similar settlement was reached tentatively between

the Spokane Indian Tribe and Washington Water

Power in their long-standing dispute over the

ownership of the bed and banks of the Spokane

River 36-megawatt Little Falls hydroelectric

project. It offers a one-time payment of $3.2

million for fish and wildlife enhancement, an

annual payment of $375,000 (escalating according

to a fixed formula), and $1 million in exchange for

an irrevocable license and easement (Puget Sound

Business News 1994).

For basin tribes, the significance of salmon and

steelhead as commercial resources transcends the

economic valuation. Conventional cost accounting and discount rates simply do not represent the

cultural and religious values tribes in the basin

have for salmon. Even conventional economic

analysis, however, shows the great dependence

tribes have on salmon resources in the basin with

respect to income and employment (Meyer

Resources, Inc. 1983).

More than compensation is due tribes for loss

of fish values. Dams licensed more than 50 years

ago under the laws of the day are now due for

relicensing under the aegis of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission. The issuance of a new

license entails a full environmental review under

contemporary laws. Continuing impacts of the

dams and their operations are required to receive

mitigation. Many dams in the basin are scheduled

for relicensing. This may result in changes in

operations to protect fish and may mean improvements in recreational facilities and other amenities

that increase visitation and thereby contribute to

increased value of fish and wildlife resources associated with the projects (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1990, 1991).

Another interesting form of compensation, albeit

not tied to treaty rights to fish, is harvest of northern squawfish. Studies link squawfish with a high

predation rate on salmon smolts. The Bonneville

Power Administration, therefore, has instituted the

Squawfish Predation Control Program to reduce

the abundance of this species. In 1991, CRITFC

tribal crews of technicians were paid to fish for

northern squawfish in the tailrace areas just below

major dams as part of this program. This seasonal

work is subcontracted to tribal members and produces about $300,000 in income for the crews

(Anon. 1991). The program pays a bounty for all

squawfish caught. Recreational sport fishers also can

receive a per-fish payment for northern squawfish.

Introduced species—The record of fish introductions in the basin is somewhat spotty as most such

species arrived "informally" through the individual

initiative of persons wanting to re-create fishing

opportunities they knew in other areas. Most were

intended to provide benefits from commercial or

subsistence and recreational use, but many resulted

in unintended consequences in the form of predation, competition, etc. The "pan" fish largely

missing in Oregon and Washington were introduced by people missing that style of fishing from

back home. The native species fitting in this
46

category comprise squawfish, bony chub, and

sucker. German carp were possibly the earliest

known species introduced via fish culture in 1880

to provide a popular European delicacy to Oregon

markets. The Columbia River flooded the carp

pond and released fingerlings throughout the river

system. Shad were introduced to the basin in

1886.

Introduced species have had to fight for a place in

the hearts of many Northwest anglers who are cold

water devotees. Fishing can be a competitive

sport, and many of the characteristics of warm

water fish are conducive to fishing tournaments.

Even when not part of a formal fishing contest,

record-size fish and large lake and stream fish

receive special notice in fishing magazines and

newspapers and sometimes in regional media.

Fishing derbies have become popular for warm

water species at the same time derbies have been

halted on anadromous fish (Bailey 1994). There

has been slow and consistent growth in the fisheries of warm water species.

With declines in populations of anadromous

stocks and limits on the production of resident

native species, much interest has developed in

fishing for warm water species, most of which are

introduced to the basin. Despite the popularity of

the warm water fishing opportunities, state and

Federal management seem to give these fisheries

relatively little management attention and resources. Advocates of more intensive development

and management of warm water species are attempting to demonstrate how investments in

warm water fisheries can yield large benefits for

relatively low costs in comparison to the traditional cold water oriented investments (see footnote 12). With increased fishing pressure and

insufficient management attention, declining

fishing quality in some areas may indicate conservation problems relative to some stocks.

Future Fish Values

in the Basin

Future fish values in the basin depend on demographic trends, social preferences, outcomes of

various public policy debates, and biogeophysical

events and trends. Generalizations are hazardous

to make with respect to the future and especially

so with respect to highly variable fisheries. In this

section, positive and negative tendencies in fish

habitat and its management can be outlined to

provide "side boards" on future expectations about

fish values.

Demographically, the eastern slope of the Cascade

Range has served as the border to the so-called

"Empty Quarter," the sparsely populated West

(Rudzitis 1995). Populations in this area grew

rapidly between 1890 and 1920 but then stabilized

and, in some cases, declined because of agricultural rationalization and shift in opportunity

(Robbins and Wolf 1994). Since the 1960s, the

counties with high-amenity values as measured by

adjacency to protected lands—usually Federal—

grew rapidly in population. In the 1960s, the

growth rate in these counties was three times that

of other nonmetropolitan counties. In the 1970s,

their growth rate was about twice that of other

counties. "During the 1980s, their population

increased 24 percent—six times faster than the

national average of 4 percent . . . " (Rudzitis 1995).

Counties without protected lands (and associated

environmental amenities) had much lower population growth rates or declines in some cases. This

is probably a reflection of the continuation of

trends in agriculture toward larger farms and more

mechanized as opposed to manual labor (Morrill

and Downing 1986, Power 1995). Participation

rates in fishing activity may fall as a percentage of

the population, and yet the overall trend is toward

steadily increasing use in an absolute sense (Wolf

1995).

These demographic trends seem slated to continue

as electronic communication eases the demand to

stay connected and yet be able to enjoy the benefits of rural life and the general coastward trends
47

in U.S. population. The Pacific Northwest region

had a population of about 8 million people in

1980. By 1995 it reached nearly 10 million, and

by 2015, it is estimated to exceed 12 million

(USDE and others 1994b). This means new

types of people with different lifestyles moving to

rural communities and the economic base being

transformed from a strictly extractive or agricultural economy to a more diverse set of footloose

industries, service industries, and retirement communities (Power 1995). Such trends place more

people in a residential position to participate in

recreation activities like fishing in the basin.

There also may be a marginal impact on riparian

areas as people build their residences close to the

features that make living in amenity areas desirable. In Washington State alone, it is estimated

that 30,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat are

lost each year (Turner 1995).

The trends in the various fish stocks (salmonids,

cold water, warm water, and rare) and levels of

fishing for them are hard to predict (Minkley

1991). In the near term, salmon fisheries in the

basin are likely to be depressed and chaotic. Given

present trends, the current low level of wild stocks

and heavy reliance on hatchery stocks for production means that yields are likely to be at the low

end of their range and possibly worsen in the near

term. Virtually all commercial fishing for salmonids in the basin is halted or severely restricted

relative to even the recent past. Recreational

fisheries are similarly constrained, and serious

questions are being raised by tribes about the

commitment of fishery and hydrosystem managers

to maintain the fisheries protected under treaties

(Strong 1994). It is unlikely that this situation

will change in the short run because relatively

healthy wild or hatchery runs that could support a

fishery are frequently mixed with runs listed as

endangered. Unless some way can be discovered

to control fishing pressure on the weak stocks, the

"weak stock" management approach being used by

state, Federal, and tribal managers will require

continuation of the protection of basin stocks.

Despite the scenario for salmonids outlined above,

there is a slate of possible habitat management

actions for endangered salmon, probable listing of

fish stocks under the ESA (1973), and proposed

actions to cause recovery of endangered salmon

stocks that seek to restore salmon to greater abundance (table 15).14 Even with the most optimistic

conditions for fish survival, recovery of these

stocks will be slow—four to five life cycles (12 to

20 years)—and recovery in ESA terms is not

defined as recovery to levels of former abundance

or to commercial abundance. Recovery is to

"restore these distinct populations (and their

genetic and demographic subunits) to viable,

naturally reproducing self-sustaining numbers"

(Snake River Recovery Team 1994). With recovery of the weakest stocks, it may be feasible to

allow greater usage of stronger stocks, especially

those from hatcheries.

Current costs (out of pocket expenses, loss of revenues of foregone production, and higher cost of

offsetting energy purchases) for salmon restoration

by Bonneville Power Administration amount to

about $350 million annually in 1994. This amount

is more than double the expenditures for salmon

restoration in 1991 and represents an increasing

share of BPA's total revenues. Implementation of

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Recovery Plan has been variously estimated to cost

$160 million per year in addition to the existing

BPA costs.

The program of restoring anadromous fish in the

Columbia River system is the largest and most

expensive known to be underway at this time. It

exceeds, for example, the total annual budget of

the NMFS, which manages all the U.S. marine

fisheries and has responsibility for certain species

like salmon under the ESA. Obviously, this scale

of expenditure attracts attention. Some deem it

14This presentation is predicated on Federal law existing in

May 1995. Efforts in Congress to exempt activities such as

salvage logging from compliance with existing law may

change this scenario in ways that cannot be anticipated.

Similarly, efforts in Congress to revise or repeal existing

Federal law may have comparable effect.
48

Table 15—Examples of existing or contemplated programs affecting fish values in the basin, 1995

Program Lead agency and agencies Reference

Salmon 2000 Washington Department of Fish WDF 1992

 and Wildlife

Oregon Wild Fish Policy Oregon Department of Fish and Game State Legislature Passed

 Law 1991

Columbia River System Operation Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. USDE and others 1994a

 Review Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of

 Reclamation

Forest Ecosystem Management Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries USDA and others 1993,

 Assessment Team (FEMAT) Service, Bureau of Land Management, USDA and USDI 1994b

 Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park

 Service, Environmental Protection

 Agency

Salmon Recovery Program for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish CRITFC 1992a

 Columbia River Basin Commission

PACFISH Forest Service, Bureau of Land USDA and USDI 1994c

 Management

Eastside Ecosystem Management Forest Service, Bureau of Land USDA and USDI 1994a

 Strategy Management

Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan National Marine Fisheries Service Snake River Salmon

 Recovery Team 1994,

 NMFS 1995

Columbia River Basin Fish and Northwest Power Planning Council NPPC 1993, 1994

 Wildlife Program

Integrated System Plan: Columbia Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife CBWFA 1991

 Basin System Planning Salmon Authority

 and Steelhead

too large, others as too little, and still others as

misdirected. Economic analysts have sought to

help frame the issues for anadromous fisheries and

other fisheries in the basin in terms of value of

increased fish abundance (Olson and others

1991), cost of proposed recovery measures for

endangered species (Huppert and Fluharty 1995),

cost-benefit analysis (Scott and others 1987), costeffectiveness (Olson 1992), and natural capital

(Alkire 1993). The SOR posits its economic

analysis of the fish and wildlife program in terms

of anadromous commercial and recreational fisheries and its resident fish in terms of net economic

development analysis, which might be termed the

current best practice for cost-benefit analysis

(USDE BPA and others 1994d).

Each approach offers insight in terms of economic

analysis for policymaking processes. There is

general theoretical agreement among economists

on the elements of a proper approach to analysis of

fisheries values; that is, it should be comprehensive

geographically and across sectors of the economy,

use common metrics, and use net economic benefits

and costs to the Nation (or region) as its analytical

perspective. Such a study is not available today,
49

although the SOR studies come closest. If such a

study could be afforded and performed in a timely

manner for decisionmaking, it is also apparent that

the information such a study provides can be only

one component of the myriad legal, social, biological, and political factors considered in setting

policy. Until such determination is made, the

future of restoration is unclear.

If measures to restore salmonid stocks are successful, it is not clear what remains as the carrying

capacity of the basin for wild salmon stocks. Under current conditions, about 75 percent of the

fish returning to spawn are from hatchery stocks

and 25 percent are from wild stocks. There is no

doubt that in some areas, high-quality habitat for

wild stocks is not being used. In other areas, even

full usage of remaining habitat may not be sufficient to develop large runs on which to base commercial, tribal, or recreational fisheries.

In March of 1995, the NMFS announced measures

to cause recovery of Snake River endangered salmon

and to protect salmon habitat. Still other efforts

by Federal, state, and tribal land and resource

managers under such programs as the Northwest

Forest Plan are expected to have widespread beneficial effects on many salmon species in the river

system. Efforts underway to improve habitat may

assist, but the prognosis is that landscape-level

changes will take place over the long term only if

management and natural successional processes are

in the right direction.

Considerable habitat is inaccessible to salmonids

due to dam construction on the main-stem

Columbia and Snake Rivers. Serious proposals

have been made to restore salmon to the upper

Snake River habitats (Armour 1990) but not for

bypassing Grand Coulee Dam. Similar proposals

have been made to remove the Condit Dam on

the Big White Salmon River and the Enloe Dam

on the Similkameen River (Heinith and Berg

1992). Relicensing of dams by the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission is another point where

significant fish mitigation can be obtained.

Projects built and operated to earlier standards

must now comply with more recent environmental

regulations (Doppelt and others 1993, Echeverria

and others 1989, Palmer 1986). The extent to

which these efforts may affect fish values in the

future is highly speculative. Still, the recreational

value of additions to salmon stocks is large, and

the significance for tribes now lacking access to

former salmon abundance in the upper Snake

River is inestimable.

Recreational salmon fisheries are a popular form of

leisure in the Pacific Northwest and will remain so.

Tight quotas for protecting Columbia River stocks

place recreational, commercial, and tribal fisheries

in increased conflict over a much diminished

resource. The present division of catch among

these parties is the result of difficult negotiations.

Currently, demands are increasingly strong to

eliminate or mostly curtail commercial fishing for

salmon. Given the smaller number of fish, the

question arises whether the fish are worth more in

net benefit terms if taken in recreational fisheries

than in commercial fisheries (Courtier 1995).

In the basin, the remaining recreational fisheries

argue strenuously for a larger share to be taken

out of the lower river commercial fisheries.

Most attention given by Federal, state, and tribal

fish management entities is devoted to salmonid

species. To be sure, significant resources of these

agencies are allocated to other rare or endangered

species and to management of other cold water

and warm water fisheries. If there are continuing

losses of salmonids, the relative importance of

other species is likely to increase; for example, bull

trout. Recreational and commercial fishing patterns may shift to take advantage of remaining

species of fish. Cold water fishing opportunities

are notable in the basin, particularly in headwater

streams supporting native trout but also in lakes

and streams where native and introduced cold

water species and hatchery stocks constitute the

bulk of the fish. Warm water species are likely to

play an increasing role in providing recreational

opportunities. Comparatively little is known

about the potential for warm water fisheries as

management has allocated only limited resources
50

to monitoring and studying these fisheries. Management of the rare species of trouts and other

native fish in south-central Oregon (and other

areas where they are present) is likely to produce

little in the way of increased fishing opportunity;

yet it may ensure the survival of the species.

Restoration of habitats for fish in the basin is

seldom a short-term uncomplicated, action with

instant results. Recent studies have shown that

landscape-level disturbance in the basin has

occurred over more than a century (Lehmkuhl

and others 1994, McIntosh and others 1994,

Robbins and Wolf 1994, Wissmar and others

1994). Restoration of habitat by natural processes

can be expected to require similar time and space

scales. Hypothetical duration of impacts from

disturbances range from less than a decade for the

case of a drought to as much as 500 years in the

case of a major debris flow although there can be

considerable variability in resilience in stream

systems (Bisson and others 1992). Human intervention in fish habitat restoration may accelerate

certain changes; however, there is a lack of information on rates and effectiveness of possible measures. Besides the natural process of recovery of

ecosystems, there is the derivative or interacting

aspect of long-term change in use patterns and

how they affect economic and cultural systems.

Relatively little research is available on the relations between economic and ecosystem change,

but indications are that societal systems can be

slow to adapt to environmental change as well

(Glantz 1988, Gunn 1993, Hughes 1994, Marsh

1974, Ponting 1991).

Probably the most important component of

habitat is maintenance of an adequate quantity

and quality of water. Most of the manipulation

of the basin hydrology has hitherto come from

impoundments and low-cost hydroelectric power

generation. Although pumping of ground water

has been a problem in some large areas, increasingly, pumping of ground water poses a threat to

riparian ecosystems and their fish in places like

the Snake River valley and other aquifers of Idaho

used for irrigation. Ground-water pumping lowers

the water table, which can affect stream flows

(Barker 1993, Palmer 1991, Stuebner 1995). In

the water-parched basin, many rivers are oversubscribed for water withdrawals, leaving little for fish

at the requisite times. Resolution of water rights

issues on a state-by-state basis is on the agendas,

and it remains to be seen if the allocations will be

resolved in a way that benefits fish and wildlife.

Without such consideration, fish are likely to have

an increasingly difficult time, and commercial

and recreational usage also will suffer; drought is

a fact of life in the basin. When coupled with the

increased demand for ground-water pumping to

irrigate crops during droughts and the decreased

supply of surface waters, the result is added pressure on fish (Broches and others 1984).

Changes in fish fauna of the region as a result of

introduced fish species continues as seen in the

surreptitious and illegal release of lake trout in

Yellowstone Lake just outside the basin (Margolis

1994). If such introductions continue, there is no

way to predict the fish species in the mix of the

recreational or commercial targets. Such changes

may make little difference in terms of aggregate

recreational activity levels in terms of cold water

versus warm water fishing; however, it may make a

large difference in specialized fisheries such as exist

in high-quality trout streams in Idaho and Montana. Another difficulty in predicting the nature

of fisheries in the basin is seen in the ability of fish

managers to choose alternative fishing objectives

in response to fishing problems, pressures, and

preferences. Already, trout hatcheries play a significant role in augmenting the supply of catchable fish in most aquatic environments in the

basin--directly and indirectly. This serves to promote demand for such fisheries. Alternative

management measures that reflect changing values

of society or fish managers about the viability of

continued stocking programs versus wild stock

production or the mix of the two are possible but

unpredictable.

Further complexity to the introduced species

issues comes with the potential for introducing

fish diseases like the myxosporean, Myxosoma

cerebralis that causes whirling disease in salmonids.
51

This disease has caused the rapid decline in the

rainbow trout in the Madison River just across the

Continental Divide from the basin. According to

the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and

Parks, the most likely origin of the disease is illegal

planting of infected trout from other waters. If

infected fish were introduced into the river systems in the upper basin, there could be a massive

drop in salmonid populations (Holt 1995). Loss

of salmonids in the basin is already great cause for

concern. High loss of salmonids and replacement

by other species of native and nonnative trouts or

other fish would be a major shift in recreational

fishing, and the impacts would be long term.

European experience indicates that once the

whirling disease parasite is in the watershed, only

sterilization removes it.

Loss of genetic stocks through attrition or

extirpation as well as gain of genetic stocks

through introductions or bioengineering are likely

scenarios for future fisheries for commercial and

recreational fisheries.

Impacts of global climate change on watershed

management may be discerned over the next 50

years, but little research has been done in the basin

to link postulated change to fish and fish habitat

(Lawson 1993, Risser 1992). The long-term

cumulative effects of present management are not

well known, and they, perhaps more than climate

change, are likely to be the dominant factor influencing the watershed. Similarly, choices about

species conservation and management of watersheds for fish habit also tend to dominate over

potential global climate change influences. Global

climate change may have subtle but pervasive

influence over hydrology vegetation and habitats

(Swanson and others 1992). Franklin and others

(1992) conclude "that altered disturbance regimes

will interact with global warming to produce

major change in the forestscapes of the Pacific

Northwest long before climate change alone would

produce significant change in established forests . . . .

Some probable overall effects of these changes

include a net shift in area from forest to nonforest

vegetation, net loss of biotic diversity as some

species fail to track suitable habitats, and minor

additions to CO2

. . . ." Such changes in northern

rivers like those of the basin can have impacts on

the structure of the aquatic ecosystem and lead to

profound changes in the abundance of salmon

(Rubenstein 1992).

Simenstad and others (1992) suggest that,

"Climatic variability may have had a larger effect

on river temperature than the anthropogenic

influences of impoundment, deforestation, irrigation (presumably raising river temperatures) and

groundwater recharge (potentially decreasing river

temperatures)." This observation could support

the view that climate change may have similar

effects on salmon in the river as experienced over

the last 60 years with respect to temperature. It

also could urge caution in efforts to predict the

nature of changes in water temperature in the

basin rivers because of the complex interplay

among the components of river hydrology and

temperature. Neitzel and others (1991) examine

the slightly warmer, drier interval during the

middle Holocene in the Pacific Northwest to

assess possible impacts on salmonid populations in

the basin. They conclude that the salmon and

steelhead resource could both benefit from and be

harmed by global climate change, depending on

the characteristics and location within the basin.

Impacts are variable in their estimation according

to species and location. Thus, summer steelhead

stocks may have no impact or a moderate improvement in the Snake River drainages, whereas

upper Snake River sockeye would experience

severe adverse impact (assuming, of course, the

Redfish Lake stock survives the 50- to 100-year

interval until such change may occur). Salmon

from the basin also may benefit or be harmed by

climate change impacts during the oceanic phase

of their life cycles (Francis and Sibley 1991).
52

Conclusion

Systematic study of the fish values in the basin

demonstrates that they are enormously complex

and relatively unexplored. This effort to characterize fish values in the basin ecosystem and economy

confirms that fish constitute an extremely valuable

source of commercial and recreational benefits

whether they are based on native stocks, hatchery

populations of salmon and trout, or introduced

species. For Native Americans of the basin, the

present low level of abundance of salmonids has

major economic and cultural impacts. The basin

ecosystem can be seen as a supplier of ecological

services to a large region that extends, in the case

of salmonids, to the whole northeast Pacific fisheries. More broadly, salmon are rapidly becoming

symbols of quality of life as well as part of the

cultural heritage of the region (Smith 1994).

Fish values can be projected to increase over the

middle to long term because:

1. Recovery measures will have a positive effect.

2. Human population in the region is growing

rapidly in urban and rural areas, which will

make whatever fish that exist more valuable.

3. Management will develop better tools to

balance between supplementing fisheries in

some parts of the ecosystem and developing

quality wild stock fisheries in other areas.

Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to the

future of fish values. Major issues like global

climate change may have strong impacts over a

fairly long period if there are not hidden surprises

in the way fish stocks will respond to any change.

On a shorter term basis, favorable (or nonfavorable) estuarine and ocean conditions may occur,

and it may be shown that they play a greater role

than previously understood in survival of anadromous stocks. Finally, technological and operational innovation in the hydrosystem may solve

some of the juvenile and adult mortality. Most

likely, some combination of all these confounding

variables may work in the end, in ways not understood, to restore a modicum of the former integrity to the once wilderness river now factory river

(Fluharty and Lee 1988).

Acknowledgments

Research assistance by Kent Lind, Christine Fahy,

Richard Grant, David Malone, Suzanne Rebert,

and Elizabeth Reynolds from the School of Marine

Affairs (SMA), University of Washington is gratefully acknowledged. Dan Huppert, SMA; Trina

Wellman, Battelle Northwest; Rachael Nugent,

Pacific Lutheran University; and William Jaeger,

Williams College, have contributed advice,

encouragement, and documentation.

Amy Horne has been the prime contact and

supervisor for this project. I appreciate the

assistance and insights gained from her and her

colleagues Richard Haynes, Chris Hansen-Murray,

Gordon Reeves, James Sedell, Amy Molitor, and

Natalie Bolon. Lisa Crone was helpful in preparing this publication from the original contract

report. Rick Stowell of the Northern Region,

USDA Forest Service, also sent valuable materials.

Many Federal agency staff assisted as well; Kristin

Sycamore, National Park Service, and Chuck

Korson, Bonneville Power Administration were

especially helpful.

Phil Meyer, Meyer Associates, and Eugene Hunn,

Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, provided critical materials and discussions

with respect to tribal fish values. Jim Webber,

CRITFC, gave me access to legal materials relative

to treaty rights and concerns of Native Americans.

Many persons from state fisheries agencies assisted

me or my research assistants in obtaining materials

for this project, especially Pamela Erstad and Paul

Mongillo, Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife; and Chris Carter and Hal Weeks,

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
53

Literature Cited

Anon. 1991. Gone squawfishin' [sic]. Wana Chinook Tymoo. 1(Summer): 3-5.

Adamowicz, W.; Louviere, J.; Williams, M. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods

for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26:

271-292.

Agee, James. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. 493 p.

Agee, James. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Alkire, Carolyn. 1993. The living landscape. Vol 1: Wild salmon as natural capital. Washington, DC:

The Wilderness Society. 39 p. [plus appendix].

Ames, Francis H. 1966. Fishing the Oregon country. Caldwell, ID: The Caxton Printers, Ltd. 324 p.

Armour, Carl L. 1990. Options for reintroducing salmon and steelhead above mid-Snake River dams. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center. [Irregular pagination].

Bailey, Dave. 1994. Anatomy of a Washington bass tournament. Fishing Holes: May: 6-8.

Barker, Rocky. 1993. Saving all the parts: reconciling economics and the Endangered Species Act.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 268 p.

Beamish, Richard. 1995. Response of anadramous fish to climate change in the North Pacific. In:

Peterson, David L.; Johnson, Darrell R., eds. Human ecology and climate change. Washington, DC:

Taylor and Francis: 123-126.

Beath, John L. 1991. Trophy walleye are waiting and willing. Fishing Holes. 17(7): 3-4, 24.

Behnke, Robert J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. Monograph 6. [Bethesda, MD]:

American Fisheries Society. 275 p.

Bennett, David H.; Hatch, Douglas R.; Liter, Mark D. 1991. Managing largemouth bass in the Northwest: a game of recruitment, protection and patience. In: Cooper, James L.; Hamre, R.H., tech. coords.

Warmwater fisheries symposium I; 1991 June 4-8; Scottsdale, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-207. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 313-322.

Berg, Laura. 1993. A short history of fish mitigation on the Columbia River. Wana Chinook Tymoo.

3(1-2): 16-19. (Second in a two-part series).

Bisbee, Larry. 1981. The walleye in Oregon. Oregon Wildlife. March: 3-7.

Bisson, Peter A.; Quinn, Thomas P.; Reeves, Gordon H.; Gregory, Stanley V. 1992. Best management

practices, cumulative effects, and long-term trends in fish abundance in Pacific Northwest river systems. In: Naiman, Robert J., ed. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental

change. New York: Springer-Verlag: 189-232.

Brannon, E.; Klontz, G. 1989. The Idaho aquaculture industry. The Northwest Environmental Journal.

5(1): 23-35.
54

Boyd, R.T. 1985. The introduction of infectious diseases among the Indians of the Pacific Northwest,

1774-1874. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 599 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Broches, Charles F.; Spranger, Michael S.; Williamson, Bill H., eds. 1984. Are we prepared for the next

drought?: managing low water year emergencies. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant. 134 p.

Brookshire, David S.; Neill, Helen R. 1992. Benefit transfers: conceptual and empirical issues. Water

Resources Research. 28(3): 651-655.

Burke, William T. 1994. The new international law of fisheries: UNCLOS 1982 and beyond. Oxford

Monographs in International Law. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. 382 p.

Byrd, Robert. 1992. Lake Chelan in the 1890s: steamboats, prospectors & sightseers. 1st rev. ed.

Wenatchee, WA: Byrd-Song Publishers. 84 p.

Carlough, Leslie A. 1992. Northwest Power Act. Environmental Law. 22: 1184-1193.

Chance, David H. 1973. Influences of the Hudson's Bay Company on the native cultures of the Colvile

[sic] District. Moscow, Idaho. Part 2 . 166 p. (Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 7(1)).

Cohen, Fay G. 1986. Treaties on trial: the continuing controversy over Northwest Indian fishing rights.

Seattle: University of Washington Press. 229 p.

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1991. Integrated system plan: salmon and steelhead

production plan. Portland, OR: Northwest Power Planning Council. 527 p.

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 1992a. Fishing dismal for tribal members. Wana

Chinook Tymoo: 2(3): 3.

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 1992b. Salmon recovery program for the Columbia

River basin. Portland, OR: March. 130 p.

Cone, Joseph. 1995. A common fate: endangered salmon and the Pacific Northwest. New York: Henry

Holt and Company. 340 p.

Costanza, Robert; Wainger, Lisa; Folke, Carl; Mäler, Karl-Göran. 1993. Modeling complex ecological

economic systems. BioScience. 43(8): 545-555.

Courtier, Mike. 1995. SOS: save our sealife initiative. Pacific Fishing. 16(1): 34-41.

Craig, Carol. 1994. "Twice poached" salmon not on the menu. Wana Chinook Tymoo. 4(2-3): 8.

Craig, J.A.; Hacker, R.L. 1940. The history and development of the fisheries of the Columbia River.

Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries. 49(32): 129-216.

Cubbage, Frederick W.; O'Laughlin, Jay; Bullock, Charles S., III. 1993. Forest resource policy. New

York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 562 p.

Davis, Shannon W.; Radke, Hans D. 1991. An angler survey and economic impacts of Oregon sports

anglers. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 41 p.

Dietrich, William. 1995. Northwest passage: the great Columbia River. New York: Simon and

Schuster. 448 p.

Dingell-Johnson Act [Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act of 1950], 16 U.S.C. 777-777k (1976 & Supp.

V 1981).
55

Donaldson, Ivan J.; Cramer, Frederick K. 1971. Fishwheels of the Columbia. Portland, OR: Binfords

and Mort. 124 p.

Doppelt, Bob; Scurlock, Mary; Frissell, Chris; Karr, James. 1993. Entering the watershed: a new

approach to save America's river ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 462 p.

Duffield, John; Allen, Stewart. 1988. Contingent valuation of Montana trout fishing by river and angler

subgroup. Angler preference study final economics report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and

Parks. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Printing Services. 37 p. [plus appendices].

Duffield, John; Loomis, John; Brooks, Rob. 1987. The net economic value of fishing in Montana.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Printing

Services. 45 p. [plus appendices]

Echeverria, John D.; Barrow, Pope; Roos-Collins, Richard. 1989. Rivers at risk: the concerned citizen's

guide to hydropower. Washington, DC: Island Press. 214 p.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1990. Relicensing application forecast 1990-1999. Washington, DC. May. 16 p.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1991. Evaluating relicense proposals at the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission. Pap. DPPr-2. Washington, DC. April. 16 p.

Fluharty, D.L.; Lee, K.N. 1988. Neither wilderness nor factory: learning from program implementation

in natural resources. In: Proceedings, first annual meeting on Puget Sound research; 1988 March 18-

19; Seattle, WA. Seattle, WA: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority: 256-265.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S.

Department of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Francis, Robert; Sibley, T.H. 1991. Climate change and fisheries: what are the real issues? The Northwest Environmental Journal. 7(2): 295-308.

Franklin, Jerry F.; Swanson, Frederick J.; Harmon, Mark E. [and others]. 1992. Effects of global

climatic change on forests in northwestern North America. In: Peters, Robert L.; Lovejoy, Thomas E.,

eds. Global warming and biological diversity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 244-257.

Freeman, A. Myrick, III. 1993. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and

methods. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 516 p.

Freeman, Otis W.; Martin, Howard H. 1954. The Pacific Northwest: an overall appreciation. 2d ed.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 540 p.

Glantz, Michael, ed. 1988. Societal responses to global climate change: forecasting by analogy. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press. 220 p.

Glude, John B. 1989. Aquaculture for the Pacific Northwest, a historical perspective. The Northwest

Environmental Journal. 5(1): 7-21.

Gunn, Joel D. 1994. Global climate and regional biocultural diversity. In: Crumley, Carole L., ed.

Historical ecology: cultural knowledge and changing landscapes. Santa Fe, NM: School of American

Research Press: 67-97.
56

Hanna, Susan S. 1983. The economics of uncertainty: a survey of the literature on uncertainty with

particular reference to the fishery. NOAA Tech. Mem. MNFS F/NWC-47. Seattle: U.S. Department

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

193 p.

Hartzell, Brian. 1991. Cold water gold: Banks Lake walleye. Fishing Holes. April: 13-16.

Harvey, Alan E.; Geist, J. Michael; McDonald, Gerald I. [and others]. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-323. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 71 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest

ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Hasler, A.D. 1954. Odour perception and orientation in fishes. Journal of the Fishery Research Board of

Canada. 11: 107-129.

Hass, Gordon R.; McPhail, J.D. 1991. Systematics and distributions of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma)

and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in North America. Canadian Journal of Fishery and Aquatic

Sciences. 48: 2191-2211.

Hatley, Thomas A. 1976. Efficiency in Oregon's commercial salmon fisheries: a historical perspective.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 86 p. M.A. thesis.

Heinith, Bob; Berg, Laura. 1992. Dam removal is best option. Wana Chinook Tymoo. 2 (1): 8-12.

Hewes, Gordon W. 1947. Aboriginal use of fishery resources in northwestern North America. Berkeley,

CA: University of California: 268 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Hildreth, Richard; Thompson, Jeanne. 1994. Legal aspects of Columbia-Snake River salmon recovery.

Ocean and Coastal Law Memo 41. Eugene, OR: Ocean and Coastal Law Center, University of

Oregon. 23 p.

Hislop, Deane. 1994. America's shad. Fishing Holes. April: 1-8, 19.

Holt, John. 1995. Trout dance of death. Wild Forest Review. 2(2): 5.

Houghton, Samuel G. 1994. A trace of desert waters: the Great Basin story. Reno, NV: University of

Nevada Press. 282 p.

Hughes, J. Donald. 1994. Pan's travail: environmental problems of the ancient Greeks and Romans.

Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 277 p.

Hunn, Eugene S. 1980. Sahaptin fish classification. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes.

14(1): 1-19.

Hunn, Eugene S. 1990. Nch'i-Wána "the big river": mid-Columbia Indians and their land. Seattle:

University of Washington Press. 378 p.

Huppert, D.D.; Fight, R.D. 1991. Economic considerations in managing salmonid habitats. In:

American Fisheries Society, ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and

their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Washington, DC: [American Fisheries Society]: 559-685.

Huppert, D.D.; Fluharty, D.L. 1995. Economics of Snake River salmon recovery: a report to the

National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle: School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington. 120 p.
57

Inland Empire Public Lands Council. 1993. Transitions (six part series on Columbia basin).

Jensen, Thomas C. 1986. The United States-Canada Pacific Salmon Interception Treaty: an historical

and legal overview. Environmental Law. 16(3): 363-422.

Johansen, Dorothy O.; Gates, Charles M. 1957. Empire of the Columbia: a history of the Pacific

Northwest. New York: Harper and Brothers. 685 p.

Kaczynski, V.W.; Palmisano, J.F.; Levin, J.E. 1992. A review of management and environmental factors

responsible for the decline and lack of recovery of Oregon's wild anadromous salmonids. Salem, OR:

Oregon Forestry Industries Council. 292 p.

Karr, James R. 1993. Using biological criteria to ensure a sustainable society. In: Watershed resources:

balancing environmental, social, political and economic factors in large basins: In: Proceedings of a

conference; 1992. October 14-16; Portland, OR. Corvallis, OR: Forest Engineering Department,

Oregon State University: 61-70.

Lawson, Peter A. 1993. Cycles in ocean productivity, trends in habitat quality, and the restoration of

salmon runs in Oregon. Fisheries. 18(8): 6-10.

Lee, Kai. 1993. The compass and the gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 243 p.

Lehmkuhl, John F.; Hessburg, Paul F.; Everett, Richard L. [and others]. 1994. Historical and current

forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington. Part 1: vegetation pattern and insect and disease

hazards. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-328. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 88 p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest

ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III:

assessment).

Lewis, Peter. 1993. FBI alleges caviar scheme. The Seattle Times/Post Intelligencer. April 4. Sect. B: 5.

(col. 1-6).

Li, H.W.; Schreck, C.B.; Bond C.E.; Rexstad, E. 1987. Factors influencing changes in fish assemblages

of Pacific Northwest streams. In: Matthes, W.J.; Heins, D.C., eds. Community and evolutionary

ecology of North American stream fishes. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press: 193-202.

Loomis, John B. 1992. The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function

transfer. Water Resources Research. 28(3): 701-705.

Lothrop, Robert C. 1986. The misplaced role of cost-benefit analysis in Columbia basin fishery mitigation. Environmental Law. 16(3): 517-554.

Madson, Pamela K.; Koss, William. 1988. Washington salmon: understanding allocation. Olympia,

WA: Office of Program Research, House of Representatives. 28 p.

Magnuson Act [Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976], 16 U.S.C. 1801-1882 (1976 &

Supp. V 1981).

Margolis, Jon. 1994. The fish population that got away from Yellowstone Lake: non-native trout threatens local species. The Seattle Times, October 20: Sec A: 10 (col. 1-6).

Marsh, George P. 1974. Man and nature: or, physical geography as modified by human action. 3d. ed.

Lowenthal, David, ed. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 472 p.
58

McConnell, K.E. 1994. Model building and judgment: implications for benefit transfers with travel cost

models. Water Resources Research. 28(3): 695-700.

McIntosh, Bruce A.; Sedell, James R.; Smith, Jeanette E.; Wissmar, Robert C. [and others]. 1994.

Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935-1992. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-321. Portland. OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 55 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Meyer Resources, Inc. 1983. The importance of salmon and steelhead of the Columbia River to the

Confederated Tribes of the Colville, Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakima [sic] Indian

Reservations--with particular reference to dams of the mid-Columbia area. Davis, CA; report to

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 87 p.

Miles, Edward L.; Gibbs, Steven; Fluharty, David L. [and others]. 1982. The management of marine

regions: the North Pacific. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 792 p.

Miller, K.A.; Fluharty, D.L. 1991. El Niño and variability in the northeast Pacific salmon fishery:

implications for coping with climate change. In: Glantz, M.H., ed. Global climate change and fisheries. London, England: Cambridge University Press. 356 p.

Minckley, W.L.; Deacon, James E. 1991. Battle against extinction: native fish management in the

American West. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 517 p.

Mongillo, Paul E.; Hahn, Peter K.J. 1988. A survey of resident game fish anglers in Washington. Rep.

88-9. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Wildlife. 128 p.

Morely, Edward R. 1994. What is consumer's surplus per day of use, when is it a constant independent

of the number of days of use, and what does it tell us about consumer's surplus. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26: 257-270.

Morrill, Richard L.; Downing, Jeanne. 1986. Environmental factors in the growth and redistribution of

population in the Pacific Northwest, 1970-1980. Northwest Environmental Journal. 2(1): 43-62.

Mullan, James W.; Williams, Kenneth R. 1993. Relating Indian subsistence cultures to salmon and

steelhead abundance in mid-Columbia tributaries, appendix G. In: Mullan, James W. [and others],

eds. Production and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. Monog. 1. Seattle:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: [Appendix G]. 263-271.

National Council on Gene Resources. 1982. Anadromous salmonid genetic resources: an assessment

and plan for California. Berkeley, CA. 168 p.

Natural Resources Law Institute. 1990. Anadromous fish law—1979-1990. Anadromous Fish Law

Memo. (50) August: 1-38.

Nehlsen, W.; Williams, J.E.; Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from

California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. Fisheries. 16(2): 4-21.

Neitzel, D.A.; Scott, M.J.; Shankle, S.A.; Chatters, J.C. 1991. The effect of climate change on stream

environments: the salmonid resource of the Columbia River basin. The Northwest Environmental

Journal. 7(2): 271-294.

Netboy, Anthony. 1980. The Columbia River salmon and steelhead trout. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 180 p.
59

Northwest Power Act [Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980], 16 U.S.C.

839-839h (Supp. V 1981).

Northwest Power Planning Council [NPPC]. 1986. Compilation of information on salmon and

steelhead losses in the Columbia River basin. Portland, OR. 252 p.

Northwest Power Planning Council [NPPC]. 1993. Columbia River basin fish and wildlife program.

NPPC 93-6. Portland, OR. [Irregular pagination].

Northwest Power Planning Council [NPPC]. 1994. Columbia River basin fish and wildlife program:

overview. NPPC 94-1. Portland, OR. 50 p.

Norton, Bryan G. 1991. Ecological health and sustainable resource management. In: Costanza, Robert,

ed. Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press: 102-117.

Norton, Dee. 1992. Fish cops go high-tech to net salmon poachers. The Seattle Times/Post-Intelligencer,

February 23: Sect. B: 4 (col. 1-6).

Olsen, Darryll. 1992. The path toward cost-effectiveness: a working paper analyzing the cost-effectiveness of major salmon recovery alternatives. Portland, OR: Northwest Irrigation Utilities. 8 p. [plus

tables].

Olsen, Darryll; Richards, Jack; Scott, R. Douglas. 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the size

of Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers. 2(1): 44-56.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW]. 1994. Oregon sport fishing regulations. Portland,

OR. 64 p.

Oregon State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 1978. Socio-economics

of the Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California coho and chinook salmon industry. Corvallis, OR;

final report to Pacific Fishery Management Council. 380 p.

Pacific Fishery Management Council [PMFC]. 1991. Review of 1990 ocean salmon fisheries. Portland,

OR. [Irregular pagination].

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1992. White sturgeon management framework plan.

Portland, OR. 201 p.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1994. 46th annual report of the Pacific States Marine

Fisheries Commission for the year 1993. Portland, OR. 32 p.

Palmer, Tim. 1986. Endangered rivers and the conservation movement. Berkeley, CA: The University of

California Press. 316 p.

Palmer, Tim. 1991. The Snake River: window to the west. Washington, DC: Island Press. 322 p.

Palmisano, John F.; Ellis, Robert H.; Kaczynski, Victor W. 1993. Impact of environmental and management factors on Washington's wild anadromous salmon and trout. Olympia, WA: Washington Forest

Protection Association, State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources. 371 p.

Pearce, David. W. 1993. Economic values and the natural world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 129 p.

Pittman-Robertson Act [Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937], 16 U.S.C. 669-669i (1976 &

Supp. V 1981).
60

Ponting, Clive. 1991. A green history of the world. New York: St. Martin's Press. 432 p.

Power, Thomas. 1995. The changing economic role of natural resources. In: Weingrod, Carmi, ed.

Nature has no borders. Proceedings of a conference on the protection and management of the northern Cascades ecosystem; 1994 March 25-27; Seattle, WA . Seattle, WA: National Parks and Conservation Association: 34-41.

Puget Sound Business News. 1994. WWP settles suit with Indian tribe. Seattle, WA: 21.

Radtke, Hans D.; Davis, Shannon W. 1994. The economics of ocean fishery management in Oregon.

Portland, OR: Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association, Inc. 82 p.

Rettig, Bruce; McCarl, Bruce. 1984. Potential and actual benefits for commercial fishing activities:

Review of 1985 ocean salmon fisheries. Portland, OR: [Publisher unknown]: 199-212. (Appendix IV

in Pacific Fisheries Management Council 1985).

Rich, Willis H. 1942. The salmon runs of the Columbia River in 1938. Fishery Bull. 37. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office. 74 p.

Risser, Paul G. 1992. Impacts on ecosystems of global environmental changes in Pacific Northwest

watersheds. In: Naiman, Robert J., ed. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. New York: Springer-Verlag: 12-24.

Robbins, William G.; Wolf, Ronald W. 1994. Landscape and the Intermontane Northwest: an environmental history. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-319. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p.

Rostlund, Erhard. 1952. Freshwater fish and fishing in native North America. University of California

publications in geography 9. Berkeley, CA; Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 313 p.

Rubenstein, Daniel I. 1992. The greenhouse effect and changes in animal behavior: effects on social

structure and life-history strategies. In: Peters, Robert L.; Lovejoy, Thomas E., eds. Global warming

and biological diversity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 180-192.

Ruby, Robert H.; Brown, John A. 1981. Indians of the Pacific Northwest: a history. Norman, OK:

University of Oklahoma Press. 294 p.

Rudzitis, Gundars. 1995. People, ecosystems and the changing American West. In: Weingrod, Carmi,

ed. Nature has no borders. Proceedings of a conference on the protection and management of the

northern Cascades ecosystem; 1994 March 25-27; Seattle, WA. Seattle, WA: National Parks and

Conservation Association: 28-33.

Save Our Wild Salmon [SOS]. 1995. Wild salmon forever: a citizen's strategy to restore Northwest

salmon and watersheds. Seattle, WA. 45 p.

Schalk, Randall F. 1986. Estimating salmon and steelhead usage in the Columbia basin before 1850: the

anthropological perspective. Northwest Environmental Journal. 2(2): 1-19.

Schoener, A.; Fluharty, D.L. 1985. Biological anomalies off Washington in 1982-1983 and other major

Niño periods. In: Wooster, W.S.; Fluharty, D.L., eds. El Niño north: Niño effects in the eastern

subarctic Pacific Ocean. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant. 312 p.

Scott, Michael J.; Moe, Ronald J.; Le Blanc, Michael R.; Currie, J. William. 1987. Columbia River

salmon: benefit-cost analysis and mitigation. Northwest Environment Journal. 3(2): 121-152.
61

Seattle Times. 1994. Colville tribes OK settlement over Grand Coulee losses. April 17; Sect. B: 3 (col. 1-3).

Simenstad, Charles A.; Jay, David A.; Sherwood, Christopher R. 1992. In: Naiman, Robert J., ed.

Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. New York: SpringerVerlag: 266-306.

Smith, Allan K. 1991. Exotic fish introductions: we live with history, deal with the present and plan to

do better in the future. In: Cooper, James L.; Hamre, R.H., tech. coords. Warmwater fisheries symposium I; 1991 June 4-8; Scottsdale, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-207. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 22-24.

Smith, Courtland L. 1974. Oregon fish fights. ORESU-T-74-004. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Sea Grant College Program. 15 p.

Smith, Courtland L. 1979. Salmon fishers of the Columbia. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University

Press. 117 p.

Smith, Courtland L. 1994. Connecting cultural and biological diversity in restoring Northwest salmon.

Fisheries. 19(2): 20-26.

Snake River Salmon Recovery Team. 1994. Snake River Salmon Recovery Team: final recommendations

to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR. [Irregular pagination].

Southwick Associates. 1992. The economic impacts of hunting, sport fishing and non-consumptive

recreation in Washington, 1991. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Wildlife. 30 p.

Spranger, Michael S.; Anderson, Randall S. [n.d.]. Columbia River salmon. Seattle: University of

Washington, Washington Sea Grant. 11 p.

State of Washington, Department of Community Development. 1988. Economic impacts and net

economic values associated with non-Indian salmon and sturgeon fisheries. A report to the State of

Washington Department of Community Development Olympia, WA: ICF Technology Incorporated.

71 p. [plus appendices]

Stickney, Robert R. 1994. Use of hatchery fish in enhancement programs. Fisheries. 19(5): 6-13.

Stone, Carol M. 1983. Stehekin: glimpses of the past. Friday Harbor, Washington: Long House

Printcrafters. 248 p.

Strong, Ted. 1994. Tribal right to fish. Journal of Forestry. 92(4): 34.

Stuebner, Steve. 1995. No more ignoring the obvious: Idaho sucks itself dry. High Country News.

27(3): 1, 8-11.

Sullivan, Brian Jack. 1990. Lake Celilo's word [sic]-class walleye. Fishing Holes. 17(11): 16-18.

Sullivan, Brian Jack. 1993. World record walleyes in waiting. Fishing Holes. 20(10): 16-18, 22.

Swanson, F.J.; Neilson, R.P.; Grant, G.E. 1992. Some emerging issues in watershed management:

landscape patterns, species conservation, and climate change. In: Naiman, Robert J., ed. Watershed

management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. New York: Springer-Verlag: 307-332.

Swanson, Timothy M.; Barbier, Edward B. 1992. Economics for the wilds: wildlife, diversity, and

development. Washington, DC: Island Press. 226 p.
62

Tripp, Lisa; Rockland, David B. 1990. Fishery resources of the National Forests: extent, uses, and

economic benefits 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wildlife

and Fisheries Division. 177 p.

Turner, Bob. 1995. A look at what's working. Trout and Salmon Leader. May/June: 12.

Turner, Richard B. 1994. Inflation on the Columbia. Letter to the editor. Pacific Fishing. 15(8): 8.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. Resource pricing and valuation procedures for

the recommended 1990 RPA program. Washington, DC. 33 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994a. Eastside ecosystem management strategy charter. Walla

Walla: WA. [not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994b. Environmental assessment for the implementation of

interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon, and Washington, Idaho and portions of California. Washington, DC. March. [Irregular pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994c. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place

of publication unknown]. 74 p. [plus Attachment A: standards and guidelines].

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine

Fisheries Service. 1991. Endangered status for the Snake River sockeye salmon on November 20,

1991 (56 FR 58619). [Place of publication unknown].

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine

Fisheries Service. 1992. Threatened status for the Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon and

Snake River fall chinook salmon on April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653).

U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland

Division; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1994a. Columbia River system

operation review: draft environmental impact statement. Portland, OR. [Irregular pagination].

U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland

Division; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1994b. Columbia River system

operation review: draft environmental impact statement. Appendix C-1: Anadromous fish. Portland,

OR. [Irregular pagination].

U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland

Division; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1994c. Columbia River system

operation review: draft environmental impact statement. Appendix J: Recreation. Portland, OR.

[Irregular pagination].

U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland

Division; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1994d. Columbia River system

operation review: draft environmental impact statement. Appendix O: economic and social impact.

Portland, OR. [Irregular pagination].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Special status fishes habitat

management. Fish and Wildlife 2000 National Strategy Plan Series. BLM/SC/PT-91/005+6844.

Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management Service Center. 53 p.
63

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. 1985 national survey of fishing,

hunting and wildlife associated recreation. Washington, DC. 167 p.

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989a. 1985 national survey of fishing,

hunting and wildlife-associated recreation: Idaho. Washington, DC. 81 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989b. 1985 national survey of fishing,

hunting and wildlife-associated recreation: Montana. Washington, DC. 81 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989c. 1985 national survey of fishing,

hunting and wildlife-associated recreation: Oregon. Washington, DC. 81 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989d. 1985 national survey of fishing,

hunting and wildlife-associated recreation: Washington. Washington, DC. 81 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened species

recovery program: report to Congress. Washington, DC. 406 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1991 national survey of fishing,

hunting and wildlife associated recreation. Washington, DC. 124 p. [plus appendix]

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1994. Hanford Reach of the Columbia River:

comprehensive river conservation study and environmental impact statement. Seattle, WA: Pacific

Northwest Region. Vols. 1, 2.

U.S. Laws and Statutes, etc.; Public Law 93-205. Endangered Species Act of 1973. (ESA). Act of Dec.

28, 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 (1976 & Supp. V 1981).

U.S. v. Oregon, 699 F. Supp. 1456 (D. OR. 1988).

U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), aff’d with modification, 520 F.2d 676 (9th

Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1086 (1976).

Van Vooren, Al. 1991. Roles of biology and sociology in regulating bass harvest in Idaho. In: Cooper,

James L.; Hamre, R.H., tech. coords. Warmwater fisheries symposium I. 1991 June 4-8; Scottsdale,

AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-207. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 278-282.

Vatn, Arild; Bromley, Daniel W. 1994. Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26(2): 129-148.

Walsh, Richard G.; Johnson, Don M.; McKean, John R. 1988. Review of outdoor recreation economic

demand studies with non-market benefit estimates 1968-1988. Tech. Rep. 54. Fort Collins, CO:

Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University. 131 p.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. Status

report: Columbia River fish runs and fisheries, 1938-93. Olympia, WA. 271 p.

Washington Department of Fisheries; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1992. Status report:

Columbia River fish runs and fisheries 1938-1991. Olympia, WA. 224 p.

Washington Department of Wildlife. [1993]. Draft bull trout/Dolly Varden management and recovery

plan. Olympia, WA. 117 p.

Whitefoot v. U.S. 203 F.2d 658 (1961).
64

Wiley, Robert W. 1994. Development of trout fisheries in the Rocky Mountain region with an overview

of fish culture, wild trout and fisheries management. In: Wiley, Robert W.; Hubert, Wayne A., eds.

Wild trout and planted trout: balancing the scale: Proceedings of a workshop; 1994 May 19-20;

Denver, CO. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 222 p.

Wilkinson, Charles. 1992. Crossing the next meridian: land, water, and the future of the West. Washington, DC: Island Press. 376 p.

Williams, Jack E.; Johnson, James E.; Hendrickson, Dean A. [and others]. 1989. Fishes of North

America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries. 14(6): 2-20.

Williams, Jack E.; Lichatowich, J.A.; Nehlsen, W. 1992. Declining salmon and steelhead populations:

new endangered species concerns for the West. Endangered Species Update. 9(4): 1-8 .

Wissmar, Robert C.; Smith, Jeanette E.; McIntosh, Bruce A. [and others]. 1994. Ecological health of

river basins in forested regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-326.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

65 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment;

Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed. Volume III: assessment.)

Wolf, Tom. 1995. A diminishing species - our state's fishermen. Trout and salmon leader. May/June: 7-11.

Wydoski, Richard S.; Whitney, Richard R. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle: University of

Washington Press. 220 p.

Yuasa, Mark. 1994. There's no limit to how low some poachers go. Weekend fishing outlook. The

Seattle Times/Post Intelligencer. April 15. Sect. C: 4
65

Appendix A

Table 16—Native species of fish in the basin—status and usea

Resident Special

Common name Scientific name anadromous statusb Location Use

River lamprey Lampetra ayresi A

Pit Klamath brook lamprey L. lethophaga R

Western brook lamprey L. richardsoni R T

Klamath lamprey L. similis R

Miller Lake lamprey Lampetra minima R Extinct OR

Pacific lamprey L. tridentata A * OR T

Goose lake lamprey L. tridentata ssp. R SC* OR

White sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus R ESA (E) MT T, C, S

Pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulteri R

Mountain whitefish P. williamsoni R T, S

Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis R

Dolly Varden Salmo malma A T, S

Chiselmouth Acrochelus alutaceus R T

Lake chub Couesius plumbeus R T

Alvord chub Gila alvordensis R SC * OR

Utah chub G. atraria R

Tui chub G. bicolor R T

Sheldon tui chub G. bicolor eurysoma R SC * OR/NV

Lahontan Creek tui chub G. bicolor obesa R SC * OR

Oregon lakes tui chub G. bicolor oregonensis R * OR

XL Spring tui chub G. bicolor oregonensis R SC * OR

Goose Lake tui chub G. bicolor thallassina R * OR

Catlow tui chub G. bicolor ssp. R SC * OR

Summer basin tui chub G. bicolor ssp. R E * OR

Warner basin tui chub G. bicolor ssp. R * OR

Hutton tui chub G. bicolor ssp. R ESA (T) OR

Borax Lake chub G. boraxobius R ESA (E) OR

Blue chub G. coerulea R

Leatherside chub G. copei R
66

Table 16—Native species of fish in the basin—status and usea (continued)

Resident Special

Common name Scientific name anadromous statusb Location Use

California (pit) roach Hesperoleucus symmetricus R * OR

 mitrulus

Oregon chub Oregonichthys crameri R ESA (E) OR

Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus R T

Flathead minnow Pimephales promelas R

Northern squawfish Ptychocheilus oregonensis R T,S,C*

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae R

Nooky dace R. cataractae ssp. R T WA

Leopard dace R. falcatus R

Speckled dace R. osculus R

Foskett speckled dace R. osculus ssp. R ESA (T) OR

Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus R T

Lahontan redside shiner R. egregius R * OR

Utah sucker Catostomus ardens R

Longnose sucker C. catostomus R

Bridgelip sucker C. columbianus R T

Bluehead sucker C. discobolus R

Largescale sucker C. macrocheilus R T

Goose Lake sucker C. occidentalis lacusanerinus R SC * OR

Mountain sucker C. platyrhynchus R T

Klamath smallscale sucker C. rimiculus R

Jenny Creek sucker C rimiculus ssp. R SC * OR

Tahoe sucker C. tahoensis R * OR

Sacramento sucker C. occidentalis R

Snake River sucker Chasmistes muriei R Extinct WY

Warner sucker C. warnerensis R ESA (T) OR

Klamath largescale sucker C. snyderi R

Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris R ESA (E) OR

Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus R ESA (E) OR T

Bull trout (char) Salvelinus confluentus R ESA (P) * Basin T, S

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri R S
67

Table 16—Native species of fish in the basin—status and usea (continued)

Resident Special

Common name Scientific name anadromous statusb Location Use

Westslope cutthroat trout O. clarki lewisi R * OR T, S

Lahontan cutthroat trout O. clarki henshawi R ESA (T) OR/NV

Fine-spotted Snake River O. clarki ssp. R S

 cutthroat trout

Whitehorse cutthroat trout O. clarki ssp. R T OR

Bonneville cutthroat trout O. c. utah R E ID/UT/NV

Alvord cutthroat trout O. clarki ssp. R Extinct OR/NV S

Rainbow trout (steelhead) O. mykiss R/A S,T,C*

Interior redband trout O. mykiss gibbsi R SC * OR/ID/NV

Catlow Valley redband O. mykiss ssp. R SC * OR

Goose Lake redband trout O. mykiss ssp. R SC * OR

Warner Valley redband O. mykiss ssp. R SC * OR/NV

Coho salmon O. kisutch A ESA (P) * OR/WA T, C, S

“Redfish Lake” Sockeye O. nerka A ESA (E) ID T, C, S

 salmon (kokanee)

Sockeye salmon (kokanee) O. nerka A WA T, C, S

Snake River Chinook O. tshawytscha A ESA (E) * OR/WA/ID T, C, S

Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha A

Montana arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus montanus R SC MT

Sandroller Percopsis transmontanus R T

Burbot Lota lota R T, S

Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus R

Prickly sculpin Cottus asper R T

Mottled sculpin C. bairdi R T

Malheur (mottled) sculpin C. bairdi ssp. R SC * OR T

Paiute sculpin C. beldingi R

Slimy sculpin C. cognatus R T

Shorthead sculpin C. confusus R T

Shoshone sculpin C. greenei R

Riffle sculpin C. gulosus R T

Marbled sculpin C. klamathensis R
68

Table 16—Native species of fish in the basin—status and usea (continued)

Resident Special

Common name Scientific name anadromous statusb Location Use

Wood River sculpin C. leiopomus R SC ID

Margined sculpin C. marginatus R * OR

Reticulate sculpin C. perplexus R T

Pit sculpin C. pitensis R * OR

Klamath Lake sculpin C. princeps R

Torrent sculpin C. rhotheus R T

Slender sculpin C. tenuis R SC OR

Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus A T, S

a Common and scientific names of fishes follow accepted nomenclature of the American Fisheries Society (Behnke 1992),

Robins and others (1991), and Williams and others (1989).

b Fish stock status classification: under the Federal Endangered Species Act: ESA(E) = endangered, ESA(P) = petitioned, and

ESA(T) = threatened; under the American Fisheries Society: T = threatened, E = endangered, SC = special concern, and

extinct; under the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: * = Oregon’s sensitive species list (includes critical, vulnerable,

peripheral or naturally rare).

American Fisheries Society reports Oregon with 25 species in the T, E, or SC categories—all distributed in the east-side

assesment area. One species, the Alvord cutthroat trout (listed as E in 1979), could be certified extinct by 1989. The status of

two species, Oregon chub and Lost River sucker, declined from T to E between 1979 and 1989, and the status of shortnose

sucker declined from SC to E in the same period. The Oregon chub was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1993, and the

Lost river sucker and shortnose sucker were listed at endangered under the ESA in 1988. Some captive specimens may still

exist of the Miller Lake lamprey. Some authorities consider Oregon lakes tui chub and XL Spring tui chub to be the same

species. Similarly, some consider the Lahontan cutthroat trout and the Whitehorse cutthroat trout to be the same species. (Hal

Weeks, ODFW, Fish Division, 2501 SW 1st Ave, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207 personal communication, 1994). Columbia

River coho is considered extinct. The AFS reports Washington with four species in the T, E, or SC categories—two of which

are distributed in the east-side assesment area.

Use classification: T = tribal usage can be commercial, subsistence or traditional/cultural;

S = sport fishing is common;

C = commercial fishing;

C* = commercial steelhead harvest is carried out by tribes. Northern squawfish are harvested in a target

 bounty fishery and commercial usage is being investigated as a means to reduce predation on young

 salmon; and

Blank = no information about usage.

Sources: Most species and scientific names are from list sent to author by Richard Everett and James Sedell, Eastside Ecosystem Management Strategy Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362 on June 10, 1994. Introduced species are deleted

(see appendix B). Special status ratings and some additional species are based on Williams and others (1989) and Behnke

(1992). Bull trout and Dolly Varden information from Washington Department of Wildlife. [n.d.] Federal listings and proposed

listings from various sources: Oregon update and review supplied by Hal Weeks, ODFW, Fish Division, 2501 SW 1st Ave, P.O.

Box 59, Portland, OR 97207 on April 3,1994. Tribal usage ratings are based on Hunn (1980) and Rostlund (1952). Usage

classification for sport and commercial are based on common knowledge and sources listed in text.
69

Appendix B

Table 17—List of introduced species in the basina

Common name Scientific name Yearb Usagec

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus 1946 S

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar 1950s OR 1973 WA S

Brook trout Savelinus fontinalis ca. 1870-80s S

German brown trout Salmo trutta 1900 Culture, S

Mackinaw trout-Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush (?) S

Golden trout Oncorhynchus aquabonita (?) S

Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis ca. 1900 S

Black bullhead Ameiurus melas (?) 1874 CA S

Brown bullhead-horned pout Ameiurus nebulosus 1882-83 S

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis (?) S

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus (?) S

Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus 1942 ?

Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris (?) S

White catfish Ameiurus catus (?) S

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1890-92 S

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 1890-92 S

Flathead minnow Pimephales promelas* (?) (?)

Bluegill sunfish-true sunfish Lepomis macrochirus 1890 S

Green sunfish Lepomus cyanellus by 1970s S

Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus 1893 S

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus* (?) S

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas* (?) (?)

Warmouth (rock) bass Lepomis gulosus (?) 1890 CA S

Largemouth black bass Micropterus salmoides 1890-95 S

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 1874 CA, 1925 WA

Grass pickerel Exos americanus (?) S

Goldfish Carassius auratus by 1942 ?

Common (German) carp Cyprinus carpio 1880 Culture

Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis (?) ?
70

Table 17—List of introduced species in the basin (continued)a

Common name Scientific name Yearb Usagec

Northern pike Esox lucius (?) S

Sacramento perch Archoplites interruptus* (?) S

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 1890-92 S

American shad Alosa sapidissima 1885-86 C, S

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 1940s S, C

Tench Tinca tinca (?) Culture

a Common and scientific names of fishes follow accepted nomenclature of the American Fisheries Society (Behnke 1992),

Robbins and others (1991) and Williams and others (1989).

b Year introduced date CA = date introduced into California. Oregon and Washington introductions probably followed soon

thereafter.

c Usage: S = sport fishing, C = commerical, culture = commerical fish culture and, ? = usage unknown (introduction probably

accidental)

Sources: List of species in the basin faxed to author by Richard Everett and James Sedell, Eastside Ecosystem Management

Strategy Project, June 7, 1994. Information on introductions obtained from many sources by author. Primary sources for this

listing are Ames (1966) and Wydoski and Whitney (1979).

Table 18—Native species introduced within the interior Columbia River basin

Common name Scientific name Yeara Usageb

Kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka various S, C

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss various S, T

Salmon (all spp.) various S, T, C

Trout (all spp.) various S

White sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus various S, C

a Year introduced date CA = date introduced into California. Oregon and Washington introductions probably followed soon

thereafter.

b Usage: S = sport fishing, C = commercial, culture = commercial fish culture, and ? = usage uknown (introduction probably

accidental).

Sources: Information on introductions obtained from many sources by author. Primary sources for this listing are Ames (1966)

and Wydoski and Whitney (1979).
71

Appendix CTable 19—Estimated tribal harvest of salmonids in the basin in the early 19th century

Estimated per capita Estimated Estimated

consumption total annual total annual

Hewes and Schalk consumption consumption

Tribe Main fishing locations (pounds per year) Population Hewes (pounds) Schalk (pounds)Chinook Lower Columbia tributaries, 500-665 22,000 8,800,000 14,630,000Tlatskanai Willamette River 365-475 1,600 584,000 752,000Kalapuha 100-255 3,000 300,000 765,000

Cowlitz and others 250-625 1,200 438,000 750,000 Subtotal lower Columbia 27,800 10,122,000 16,897,000Wishram Below The Dalles - NA probably similarWasco Columbia Gorge to Chinooks Tribe

 at 500-665

Tenino: Upstream of The Dalles 500-744 2,900 1,450,000 2,157,600 Tenino E. of The Dalles Wayam Celilo Falls John Day Lower John Day and Col. Tygh L. DeschutesUmatilla E. Col. and Umatilla RiversWalla Walla L. Walla Walla R., Columbia

 and L. Snake Rivers

Yakama Yakima River and Kittitas Cr. 400-863 11,200 4,480,000 9,665,600Kittitas Lake Cle ElumWailatpu (Cayuse) 365-564 500 182,500 282,000Columbia Columbia—no tributaries Limited importance Incl. in YakamaWanapum Columbia—no tributaries Limited importance Incl. in YakamaWenatchi Wenatchee and Columbia 500-976 3,500 1,750,000 3,416,000 (Pisquows) Rivers
72

Table 19—Estimated tribal harvest of salmonids in the basin in the early 19th century (continued)

Estimated per capita Estimated Estimated

consumption total annual total annual

Hewes and Schalk consumption consumption

Tribe Main fishing locations (pounds per year) Population Hewes (pounds) Schalk (pounds)Okanogan Lakes Okanogan River, Similkameen 400-1,000 2,200 1,100,000 2,750,000 (mostly in River, U. Methow River Kettle Canada) FallsSan Poil Columbia above Priest Rapids, 500-976 Incl. inNespelum Kettle Falls Wenatchi aboveColville Kettle Falls 500-976 Incl. in WenatchiL. Kutenai Kootenai River, Columbia Lake 150-481 1,200 360,000 577,200 (mostly in Canada)Spokan Spokane River below falls to 500-948 2,400 1,200,000 2,275,200

 Columbia, Cow Creek

Coeur D’Alene U. Spokane River, N. Fk. Clearwater 100-219 2,800 280,000 613,200KalispelFlatheadPend D’OreilleNez Perce Snake River by Tucannon River, 300-646 4,000 1,200,000 2,584,000

 Payette River, L. Salmon, Imnaha River, L. Grande Ronde, Celilo Falls

Shoshoni So. Idaho, Snake below 50-179 3,000 150,000 537,000Bannock Shoshone FallsNorthern Paiute Great Basin, Malheur River 50-179 Incl. in

 Owyhee River Shoshoni above

 Total basin 12,152,500 24,857,800

 Total Columbia 61,500 22,274,500 41,754,800Sources: Modified from Hewes 1947, Shalk 1987, and NPPC 1986. Spelling follows original sources.
73

Appendix D

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 1866 1871 1876 1881 1886 1891 1896 1901 1906 1911 1916 1921 1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991

1965 last summer season

1950 Selnes, traps, set nets prohibited

1977 last spring season

1935 fishwheels prohibited

1988 last sockeye season

Millions of pounds

Year

Figure 1—Commercial landings of salmon and steelhead from the Columbia River in pounds, 1866-1993.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994. Million pounds
74

Table 20—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead, 1866-1993

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Thousands of pounds

1866 272.0 0 0 0 0 272.0

1867 1,224.0 0 0 0 0 1,224.0

1868 1,904.0 0 0 0 0 1,904.0

1869 6,800.0 0 0 0 0 6,800.0

1870 10,200.0 0 0 0 0 10,200.0

1871 13,600.0 0 0 0 0 13,600.0

1872 17,000.0 0 0 0 0 17,000.0

1873 17,000.0 0 0 0 0 17,000.0

1874 23,800.0 0 0 0 0 23,800.0

1875 25,500.0 0 0 0 0 25,500.0

Idaho

Hagerman Valley

Snake River

40

30

20

10

0

28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63 68 73 78 83 88

Millions of pounds

Year

Figure 2—The Hagerman Valley on the

Snake River Plain in Idaho. Source: Brannon

and Klontz 1989.

Figure 3—Growth of commercial rainbow trout production in Idaho from

1928 to 1988. Source: Brannon and Klontz 1989.
75

Table 20—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead, 1866-1993 (continued)

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Thousands of pounds

1876 30,600.0 0 0 0 0 30,600.0

1877 25,840.0 0 0 0 0 25,840.0

1878 31,280.0 0 0 0 0 31,280.0

1879 32,640.0 0 0 0 0 32,640.0

1880 36,040.0 0 0 0 0 36,040.0

1881 37,400.0 0 0 0 0 37,400.0

1882 36,808.4 0 0 0 0 36,808.4

1883 42,799.2 0 0 0 0 42,799.2

1884 42,160.0 0 0 0 0 42,160.0

1885 37,658.4 0 0 0 0 37,658.4

1886 30,498.0 0 0 0 0 30,498.0

1887 24,208.0 0 0 0 0 24,208.0

1888 25,328.4 0 0 0 0 25,328.4

1889 18,135.4 0 1,210.2 0 1,726.6 21,072.2

1890 22,821.1 0 3,899.5 0 2,912.1 29,632.8

1891 24,065.7 0 1,052.8 0 2,010.4 27,128.8

1892 23,410.2 284.0 4,525.2 0 4,919.7 33,139.0

1893 19,636.6 1,979.3 2,071.2 157.1 4,435.4 28,279.6

1894 23,875.2 2,907.5 2,979.4 0 3,564.7 33,326.8

1895 30,253.8 6,772.9 1,225.0 1,529.5 3,378.1 43,159.3

1896 25,224.1 2,999.3 1,154.8 0 3,377.1 32,755.4

1897 29,867.2 4,137.8 882.1 0 3,137.9 38,025.0

1898 23,180.5 4,449.3 4,533.6 0 1,786.8 33,950.2

1899 18,771.0 2,013.3 1,629.9 773.8 815.6 24,003.6

1900 19,245.2 3,054.9 895.0 1,203.3 1,400.6 25,799.0

1901a — — — — — 29,832.4

1902 23,033.7 716.2 1,158.5 707.3 584.3 26,200.0

1903 27,917.3 828.3 570.0 680.0 493.1 30,488.7

1904 31,782.5 2,125.3 877.9 1,407.1 671.0 36,863.9

1905 33,028.7 1,824.2 528.2 1,751.1 667.9 37,800.1

1906 29,970.7 2,818.3 531.5 1,890.5 442.0 35,653.1
76

Table 20—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead, 1866-1993 (continued)

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Thousands of pounds

1907 24,250.4 2,159.5 374.3 1,533.8 402.6 28,720.6

1908 19,742.5 2,137.4 583.5 1,148.1 729.4 24,340.9

1909 17,118.9 2,868.1 1,704.2 1,668.9 1,175.2 24,535.3

1910 25,325.6 4,686.7 423.9 4,524.6 369.6 35,330.4

1911b 36,602.1 5,400.3 407.2 3,636.0 584.4 49,480.0

1912 21,388.0 2,165.3 558.3 1,271.5 2,147.2 27,530.2

1913 19,384.5 2,785.9 758.3 904.6 2,167.9 26,556.2

1914 25,409.1 4,744.3 2,401.1 3,351.4 1,907.6 38,501.3

1915 32,126.8 2,266.8 371.2 5,884.0 2,690.2 43,838.7

1916 31,992.9 3,541.7 257.7 5,288.1 1,580.9 42,746.3

1917 29,521.9 4,372.3 541.8 3,648.8 2,233.1 40,448.0

1918 29,249.1 6,673.9 2,572.6 2,029.5 3,022.6 44,125.4

1919 30,325.3 6,169.5 494.2 5,133.5 1,899.9 44,934.5

1920 31,094.3 l,837.6 178.0 1,277.9 1,165.9 36,311.5

1921 21,551.7 2,337.9 411.1 327.8 1,021.11 26,712.5

1922 17,914.7 6,149.7 2,090.5 601.4 2,162.8 30,152.7

1923 21,578.3 6,965.1 2,605.0 1,734.5 2,684.3 35,667.3

1924 22,365.2 7,796.4 500.9 3,926.9 3,192.8 38,167.1

1925 26,660.0 7,936.6 384.2 3,795.2 2,907.2 42,333.4

1926 21,241.0 6,605.7 1,478.0 2,234.0 3,843.1 35,566.7

1927 24,010.7 5,209.5 408.3 4,654.5 3,147.3 37,688.4

1928 18,149.3 3,722.9 327.4 8,496.8 2,160.2 33,127.1

1929 18,151.1 6,701.1 684.9 3,714.1 2,870.1 32,321.3

1930 20,078.6 7,736.9 668.0 773.2 2,404.1 31,923.4

1931 21,378.4 2,714.2 280.5 239.2 2,126.0 27,031.8

1932 16,000.9 4,096.5 190.1 1,173.7 1,431.8 23,330.2

1933 19,528.4 2,701.6 470.6 1,659.1 1,958.3 26,846.8

1934 18,787.5 4,774.7 467.1 1,662.9 1,919.2 27,901.9

1935 15,266.4 7,108.3 88.5 1,053.7 1,472.2 25,756.0

1936 16,213.6 2,495.8 668.9 2,080.6 1,940.8 23,528.6
77

Table 20—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead, 1866-1993 (continued)

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Thousands of pounds

1937 18,653.6 1,841.6 335.1 1,909.8 1,933.4 24,673.5

1938c 12,418.5 2,311.0 424.6 1,915.4 1,764.4 18,833.9

1939 13,498.8 1,529.7 269.8 1,174.4 1,438.5 17,911.2

1940 13,516.1 1,373.2 361.9 1,253.5 2,815.4 19,320.1

1941 23,238.5 1,045.0 505.7 4,149.8 2,663.7 31,602.7

1942 18,679.1 644.5 192.4 5,191.1 1,839.1 26,546.2

1943 11,426.5 706.3 146.1 959.9 1,514.5 14,753.3

1944 14,059.6 1,533.3 54.8 275.4 1,702.1 17,643.2

1945 12,972.1 1,835.5 8.7 588.8 1,963.5 17,368.6

1946 14,277.8 1,054.6 128.5 886.6 1,725.6 18,078.1

1947 17,302.7 1,498.1 718.3 496.2 1,648.7 21,664.0

1948 17,352.3 1,174.7 95.8 1,044.8 1,579.0 21,246.6

1949 10,768.5 899.2 24.0 545.0 814.0 13,050.7

1950 10,421.7 1,048.0 169.2 700.2 945.2 13,284.3

1951 10,036.3 968.0 169.4 532.3 1,207.2 12,913.2

1952 7,271.1 1,074.0 608.7 308.6 1,461.9 10,724.3

1953 6,966.6 457.5 146.2 249.2 1,898.3 9,717.8

1954 5,312.7 303.4 243.4 320.0 1,450.8 7,630.3

1955 8,581.9 598.8 200.4 125.6 1,320.0 10,826.7

1956 8,178.5 460.0 287.1 45.7 815.0 9,786.3

1957 5,918.9 390.7 240.2 32.1 741.0 7,322.9

1958 6,434.0 167.6 723.5 89.3 700.0 8,114.4

1959 4,594.3 119.7 635.8 42.9 628.5 6,021.2

1960 3,928.0 159.1 394.1 5.3 657.4 5,153.9

1961 4,160.2 382.6 158.0 17.3 612.3 5,330.4

1962 5,467.3 600.0 51.7 48.1 715.3 6,882.4

1963 4,346.1 501.1 48.8 15.3 972.9 5,884.2

1964 4,484.0 1,963.5 68.2 23.9 421.0 6,960.6

1965 6,142.9 1,901.8 22.9 6.1 510.1 8,583.8

1966 3,612.2 4,389.1 17.2 11.0 393.0 8,422.5
78

Table 20—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead, 1866-1993 (continued)

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Thousands of pounds

1967 4,974.1 3,817.9 195.1 9.7 445.6 9,442.4

1968 4,097.1 962.2 89.6 3.4 433.9 5,586.2

1969 5,775.9 1,663.3 104.5 4.0 495.0 8,042.7

1970 6,461.7 5,745.6 55.7 8.0 311.8 12,582.8

1971 5,967.2 2,277.9 285.6 5.9 467.5 9,004.1

1972 5,684.6 1,239.4 275.6 16.0 667.1 7,882.7

1973 8,552.4 1,904.8 15.9 18.0 634.1 11,125.2

1974 3,637.8 2,432.7 .2 10.7 185.2 6,266.6

1975 6,586.5 1,581.4 0 5.7 69.5 8,243.1

1976 5,586.7 1,328.6 .5 16.9 86.6 7,019.3

1977 4,688.4 316.6 .5 2.3 425.7 5,433.5

1978 3,674.4 1,096.9 .1 20.4 249.2 5,041.0

1979 3,226.3 1,096.8 <.1 1.6 68.6 4,393.3

1980 3,072.3 1,122.5 <.1 3.1 65.6 4,263.5

1981 1,739.4 473.2 <.1 18.5 98.0 2,329.1

1982 3,036.1 1,600.2 .5 22.3 96.5 4,755.6

1983 1,038.9 45.4 6.5 2.0 156.7 1,249.5

1984 2,069.0 1,621.3 110.5 22.1 908.4 4,731.3

1985 2,646.7 1,674.7 287.4 7.5 766.2 5,382.5

1986 4,729.0 6,820.1 23.8 20.2 683.8 12,276.9

1987 9,016.9 1,313.4 256.5 14.1 753.8 11,354.7

1988 10,539.1 2,683.5 181.1 30.2 764.8 14,198.7

1989 6,120.3 2,683.1 .1 17.3 591.0 9,411.8

1990 3,095.3 501.2 <.1 9.4 331.0 3,936.9

1991 1,994.5 2,730.3 <.1 4.2 307.4 5,036.4

1992 952.3 303.8 <.1 6.9 465.2 1,728.2

1993 877.8 271.4 <.1 .5 263.0 1,412.7

a Landing by species unavailable.

b From 1911 to 1936, totals include landings of unknown salmonid species.

c Chinook totals for 1938-56 differ slightly from those calculated by summing individual landing tables from this report.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
79

Table 21—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead, 1938-93

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Thousands of fish

1938 637.7 256.9 125.6 157.0 215.7 1,392.9

1939 690.8 170.0 81.0 96.3 175.8 1,213.9

1940 685.1 152.6 111.9 102.8 344.4 1,396.8

1941 1,180.0 116.8 150.0 340.1 325.6 2,112.5

1942 943.9 71.7 57.4 425.5 224.8 1,723.3

1943 583.7 78.5 42.9 78.7 185.1 968.9

1944 714.3 170.5 16.5 22.6 210.3 1,134.2

1945 657.0 204.0 2.7 48.3 240.0 1,152.0

1946 726.0 117.8 38.3 72.7 211.0 1,165.8

1947 877.7 168.9 211.4 40.7 201.6 1,498.3

1948 901.6 130.6 29.8 85.6 193.1 1,340.7

1949 558.7 99.9 7.7 44.7 99.8 810.8

1950 534.6 116.6 50.4 57.5 115.6 874.7

1951 475.0 107.6 46.3 43.6 150.2 822.7

1952 386.9 119.6 165.8 25.3 199.1 896.7

1953 345.1 51.6 41.0 20.4 233.7 691.8

1954 299.1 33.9 67.4 26.2 149.4 576.0

1955 505.7 68.9 59.7 10.3 166.3 810.9

1956 485.0 51.5 81.3 3.7 108.9 730.4

1957 339.1 46.3 65.1 2.7 96.8 550.0

1958 371.7 18.7 197.2 7.4 91.4 686.4

1959 267.8 15.2 185.0 3.5 103.5 575.0

1960 265.5 17.7 120.0 1.3 91.5 496.0

1961 253.6 37.7 40.7 1.4 99.9 433.3

1962 310.8 65.3 14.3 3.9 95.1 489.4

1963 251.1 65.2 14.0 1.2 114.4 445.9

1964 269.3 206.2 20.8 1.9 55.6 553.8

1965 335.5 234.7 5.9 .5 64.3 640.9

1966 201.0 423.8 4.4 .9 46.3 676.4

1967 262.6 382.4 55.7 .9 50.2 751.8
80

Table 21—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead, 1938-93 (continued)

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Thousands of fish

1968 220.0 132.7 25.3 .3 45.9 424.2

1969 317.9 197.9 27.5 .3 48.9 592.5

1970 356.5 536.3 17.1 .6 33.3 943.8

1971 331.5 277.4 76.2 .5 51.4 737.0

1972 318.7 140.0 77.9 1.3 62.1 600.0

1973 453.6 194.8 3.7 1.4 52.9 706.4

1974 190.9 267.8 <.3 .9 19.3 478.9

1975 323.0 162.3 0 .5 7.3 493.1

1976 288.4 172.4 .1 1.2 9.6 471.7

1977 255.6 40.0 .1 .2 35.2 331.1

1978 189.1 136.4 <.1 1.5 20.4 347.4

1979 171.0 131.5 <.1 .1 9.2 311.8

1980 150.3 150.4 <.1 .2 7.3 308.2

1981 95.1 61.6 <.1 1.4 10.0 168.1

1982 155.3 206.0 .1 1.8 9.4 372.6

1983 57.7 7.3 1.8 .2 18.5 85.5

1984 127.9 203.1 31.6 1.8 75.1 439.5

1985 151.4 195.2 81.3 .7 85.5 514.1

1986 283.1 997.8 6.1 1.8 72.0 1,360.8

1987 483.5 170.1 67.8 1.3 79.1 801.8

1989 489.0 368.2 48.5 2.5 78.5 986.7

1989 275.0 391.7 <.1 1.4 60.9 729.0

1990 148.0 76.2 <.1 .8 32.6 257.6

1991 106.9 416.0 <.1 .4 37.0 560.3

1992 53.2 58.8 <.1 .7 51.9 164.6

1993 50.8 37.0 <.1 <.1 27.7 115.5

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
81

Table 22—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead below Bonneville Dam, 1938-93(in thousands)Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Total salmon Steelhead

Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No.

1936 10,743.2 551.4 2,309.9 256.7 325.5 93.0 1,909.4 156.5 15,288.0 1,057.6 1,415.3 172.61939 12,004.8 611.4 1,528.3 169.8 180.0 51.4 1,154.2 94.6 14,867.3 927.2 1,204.8 146.91940 11,159.9 561.6 1,372.4 159.5 165.1 47.2 1,252.7 102.7 13,950.1 864.0 2,342.7 286.11941 18,891.2 949.8 1,022.4 113.6 377.7 107.9 4,149.8 340.1 24,441.1 1,511.4 2,177.3 265.51942 15,086.6 759.8 642.7 71.4 136.4 39.0 5,190.1 425.4 21,055.8 1,295.6 1,462.7 178.41943 9,376.3 478.6 705.6 78.4 117.7 33.6 959.9 78.7 11,159.5 669.3 1,231.2 150.11944 12,214.6 614.5 1,529.7 170.0 33.4 9.5 275.4 22.6 14,053.1 816.6 1,344.0 163.91945 11,593.4 585.6 1,834.3 203.8 4.8 1.4 588.8 48.3 14,021.3 839.1 1,616.0 197.11946 11,605.8 588.6 1,058.4 117.6 93.3 26.7 886.6 72.7 13,644.1 805.6 1,312.6 160.11947 13,888.7 702.2 1,484.8 165.0 574.7 164.2 496.2 40.7 16,444.4 1,072.1 1,299.0 158.41948 13,744.1 699.8 1,173.3 130.4 40.8 11.7 1,044.8 85.6 16,003.0 927.5 1,190.6 145.21949 9,157.3 471.0 897.7 99.7 4.4 1.2 541.6 44.4 10,601.0 616.3 485.6 59.21950 8,247.3 421.8 1,041.4 115.7 121.2 34.6 699.8 57.4 10,109.7 629.5 721.3 88.01951 8,366.3 379.6 964.9 107.2 133.0 34.3 519.7 42.6 9,983.9 563.7 938.4 115.81952 5,175.4 268.9 11,066.6 118.5 513.0 134.3 308.5 25.3 7,063.5 547.0 1,047.6 141.81953 5,644.5 265.4 434.5 48.3 97.1 24.8 249.2 20.4 6,425.3 358.9 1,378.5 169.61954 4,318.4 218.7 295.5 32.8 195.6 49.9 320.0 26.2 5,129.5 327.6 1,257.1 132.01955 6,469.7 353.9 525.2 58.4 30.5 7.3 125.6 10.3 7,151.0 429.9 963.8 118.51956 7,456.3 427.3 447.4 49.7 180.7 45.6 45.7 3.7 8,130.1 526.3 632.5 81.51957 5,863.0 335.4 390.5 46.2 239.7 64.9 32.1 2.7 6,525.3 449.2 739.9 96.71958 6,283.7 360.0 165.9 18.5 704.4 190.9 89.3 7.4 7,243.3 576.8 671.6 87.31959 4,562.2 265.6 119.5 15.1 633.2 184.1 42.9 3.5 5,357.8 468.3 623.8 103.01960 3,893.4 263.1 158.0 17.5 392.2 119.4 15.3 1.3 4,458.9 401.3 649.8 90.81961 4,043.8 246.1 379.1 37.2 157.6 40.6 16.9 1.3 4,597.4 325.2 602.2 98.4
82 Table 22—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead below Bonneville Dam, 1938-93

(in thousands)—(continued)Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Total salmon Steelhead

Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No.

1962 5,322.3 300.9 582.5 62.8 39.3 10.5 48.1 3.9 5.0 378.1 715.2 95.11963 3,802.0 214.3 500.6 65.1 20.0 5.1 15.3 1.2 4,337.9 285.7 908.1 108.01964 3,838.3 226.6 1,943.6 203.7 16.6 5.0 23.8 1.9 5,822.3 437.2 372.1 49.11965 5,269.4 279.9 1,880.3 231.5 .3 .1 6.1 .5 7,156.1 512.0 405.6 51.11966 3,409.1 188.6 4,317.6 415.5 .6 .2 11.0 .9 7,738.3 605.2 378.3 44.21967 3,953.6 199.3 3,715.7 368.8 76.9 21.2 9.7 .9 7,755.9 590.2 309.7 34.31968 3,330.8 172.8 912.7 125.1 72.4 20.3 3.3 .3 4,319.2 318.5 340.5 35.51969 4,411.8 227.2 1,624.9 190.1 62.0 16.2 4.0 .3 6,102.7 433.8 348.6 34.11970 5,504.8 299.4 5,608.0 520.8 42.7 13.0 8.0 .6 11,163.5 833.8 194.9 19.91971 4,765.9 256.4 2,191.5 264.3 208.1 54.9 5.9 .5 7,171.4 576.1 238.9 25.51972 4,342.8 228.6 1,177.5 131.3 186.9 51.8 16.0 1.3 5,723.2 413.0 343.5 33.51973 6,835.2 349.5 1,823.2 183.7 9.8 2.3 18.0 1.4 8,686.2 536.9 337.4 25.01974 2,386.3 118.4 2,391.0 261.0 0 0 10.7 .9 4,788.0 380.3 68.8 6.21975a 3,918.2 182.4 1,530.7 156.6 0 0 5.7 .5 5,454.6 339.5 0 0

1976 3,023.9 153.0 1,298.4 168.4 .3 .1 16.9 1.2 4,339.5 322.7 0 01977 3,511.5 183.2 309.0 39.0 0 0 2.3 .2 3,822.8 222.4 0 01978 2,433.8 123.5 1,074.1 132.7 .1 .1 20.4 1.5 3,528.3 257.7 0 01979 2,033.2 108.1 1,065.8 127.6 .1 .1 1.6 .1 3,100.6 235.8 0 01980 2,342.9 116.4 1,120.6 150.1 0 0 3.1 .2 3,466.6 266.7 0 01981 764.5 38.7 461.9 59.8 0 0 18.5 1.4 1,244.9 99.9 0 01982 1,935.3 97.6 1,574.3 201.7 0 0 0 1.8 3,531.9 301.1 0 01983 624.6 33.2 44.4 7.1 0 0 0 .2 671.0 40.5 0 0
83

Table 22—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead below Bonneville Dam, 1938-93(in thousands)—(continued)Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Total salmon Steelhead

Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No.

1984 1,211.9 74.4 1,612.6 201.5 31.8 9.1 22.1 1.8 2,878.4 286.8 0 01985 1,298.4 74.5 1,632.4 190.0 111.6 31.9 7.5 .7 3,049.9 297.1 0 01986 27,442.0 175.9 6,724.0 981.0 6.7 1.8 20.2 1.8 9,495.1 1,160.5 0 01987 6,219.0 343.0 1,299.7 167.8 107.5 28.3 14.1 1.3 7,640.3 540.4 0 01988 7,248.2 342.1 2,645.5 363.0 61.4 17.5 30.2 2.5 9,985.3 725.1 0 01989 3,257.9 146.9 2,668.3 389.2 0 0 17.3 1.3 5,943.5 537.4 0 01990 1,300.2 64.2 494.3 75.2 0 0 9.4 .8 1,803.9 140.2 0 01991 994.7 55.7 2,685.5 409.2 0 0 4.2 .4 3,684.4 465.3 0 01992 426.6 24.0 299.0 57.8 0 0 6.9 .7 732.5 82.5 0 0

1993 337.0 19.7 262.0 36.1 0 0 0.5 .1 599.5 55.8 0 0a Sale of steelhead by non-Indians prohibted since 1975.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
84

Table 23—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead above Bonneville Dam, 1938-93(in thousands)Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No.

1938 1,670.7 86.3 1.1 0.2 99.1 32.6 6.0 0.5 349.1 43.1 2,126.0 162.71939 1,494.0 79.4 1.4 .2 89.8 29.6 20.2 1.7 233.7 28.9 1,839.1 139.81940 2,356.2 123.5 .8 .1 196.8 64.7 .8 .1 472.7 58.3 3,027.3 246.71941 4,339.4 230.2 22.6 3.2 128.0 42.1 0 0 486.4 60.1 4,976.4 335.61942 3,573.3 184.1 1.8 .3 56.0 18.4 1.0 .1 376.4 46.4 4,008.5 249.31943 2,050.2 105.1 0.7 .1 28.4 9.3 0 0 283.3 35.0 2,362.6 149.51944 1,862.5 99.8 3.6 .5 21.4 7.0 0 0 376.1 46.4 2,263.6 153.71945 1,378.4 71.4 1.2 .2 3.9 1.3 0 0 347.5 42.9 1,731.0 115.81946 2,670.4 137.4 1.2 .2 35.2 11.6 0 0 413.0 50.9 3,119.8 200.11947 3,412.4 175.5 13.3 1.9 143.6 47.2 0 0 349.7 43.2 3,919.0 267.81948 3,647.1 201.8 1.4 .2 55.0 18.1 0 0 388.4 47.9 4,091.9 268.01949 1,623.7 87.7 1.5 .2 19.6 6.5 3.4 .3 328.4 40.6 1,976.6 135.31950 2,171.5 112.8 6.6 .9 48.0 15.8 0.4 .1 223.9 27.6 2,450.4 157.21951 1,663.1 95.4 3.1 .4 36.4 12.0 12.6 1.0 268.8 34.4 1,984.0 143.21952 2,087.0 118.0 7.4 1.1 95.7 31.5 .1 0 414.3 57.3 2,604.5 207.91953 1,285.3 79.7 23.0 3.3 49.1 16.2 0 0 519.8 64.1 1,877.2 163.31954 994.3 80.4 7.9 1.1 47.8 17.5 0 0 193.7 17.4 1,243.7 116.41955 2,112.5 151.8 73.6 10.5 169.9 52.4 0 0 356.2 47.8 2,712.2 262.51956 722.3 57.7 12.6 1.8 106.4 35.7 0 0 182.5 27.4 1,023.8 122.61957 55.9 3.7 .2 .1 .5 .2 0 0 1.1 .1 57.7 4.11958 150.4 11.7 1.7 .2 19.1 6.3 0 0 28.4 4.1 199.6 22.3
85

Table 23—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead above Bonneville Dam, 1938-93(in thousands)—(continued)Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No.

1959 32.1 2.2 .2 0.1 2.6 0.9 0 0 4.7 0.5 39.6 3.71960 34.6 2.4 1.1 .2 1.9 0.6 0 0 7.6 0.7 45.2 3.91961 116.4 7.5 3.5 .5 .4 .1 .4 .1 10.1 1.5 130.8 9.71962 145.0 9.9 17.5 2.5 12.4 3.8 0 0 .1 <.1 175.0 16.21963 544.1 36.8 .5 .1 28.8 8.9 0 0 64.8 6.4 638.2 52.21964 645.7 42.7 19.9 2.5 51.6 15.8 <.1 <.1 48.9 6.5 766.1 67.51965 873.5 55.6 21.5 3.2 22.6 5.8 0 0 104.5 13.2 1,022.1 77.81966 203.1 12.4 71.5 8.3 16.6 4.2 0 0 14.7 2.1 305.9 27.01967 1,020.5 63.3 102.2 13.6 118.2 34.5 0 0 135.9 15.9 1,376.8 127.31968 766.3 47.2 49.5 7.6 17.2 5.0 .1 <.1 93.4 10.4 926.5 70.21969 1,364.1 90.7 38.4 7.8 42.5 11.3 0 0 146.4 14.8 1,591.4 124.61970 956.9 57.1 137.6 15.5 13.0 4.1 0 0 116.9 13.5 1,224.4 90.21971 1,201.3 75.1 86.4 13.1 77.5 21.3 0 0 228.6 25.9 1,593.8 135.41072 1,341.8 90.1 61.9 8.7 88.7 26.1 <.1 <.1 323.6 28.6 1,816.0 153.51973 1,717.2 104.1 81.6 11.1 6.1 1.4 <.1 <.1 296.7 27.9 2,101.6 144.51974 1,251.5 72.5 41.7 6.8 .2 <.1 0 0 116.4 13.1 1,409.8 92.41975 2,668.3 140.6 50.7 5.7 0 0 0 0 69.5 7.3 2,788.5 153.61976 2,562.8 135.4 30.2 4.0 .2 <.1 0 0 86.6 9.6 2,679.8 149.01977 1,176.9 72.4 7.6 1.0 .5 .1 0 0 425.7 35.2 1,610.7 108.71978 1,240.6 65.6 22.8 3.7 <.1 <.1 0 0 249.2 20.4 1,512.6 89.71979 1,193.1 62.9 31.0 3.9 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 68.6 9.2 1,292.7 76.0
86

Table 23—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead above Bonneville Dam, 1938-93(in thousands)—(continued)Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Steelhead Total

Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No.

1980 729.5 33.9 1.9 0.3 <.1 <.1 0 0 65.6 7.3 797.0 41.51981 974.9 56.4 11.3 1.8 <.1 <.1 0 0 98.0 10.0 1,084.2 68.21982 1,100.8 57.7 25.9 4.3 .5 .1 0 0 96.5 9.4 1,223.7 71.51983 414.3 24.5 1.0 .2 6.5 1.8 <.1 <.1 156.7 18.5 578.5 45.01984 857.1 53.5 8.7 1.6 78.7 22.5 0 0 908.4 75.1 1,852.9 152.71985 1,348.3 76.9 42.3 5.2 175.8 49.4 <.1 <.1 766.2 85.5 2,332.6 217.01986 1,984.8 107.1 96.1 16.8 17.1 4.3 0 0 683.8 72.0 2,781.8 200.21987 2,797.8 140.5 13.7 2.3 149.0 39.5 0 0 753.8 79.1 3,714.3 261.41988 3,290.9 146.9 38.0 5.2 119.6 31.0 0 0 764.8 78.5 4,213.3 261.61989 2,862.4 128.1 14.8 2.5 .1 <.1 0 0 591.0 60.9 3,468.3 191.51990 1,795.1 83.8 6.9 1.0 <.1 <.1 0 0 331.0 32.6 2,133.0 117.41991 999.8 51.2 44.7 6.7 <.1 <.1 0 0 307.4 37.0 1,351.9 94.91992 525.7 29.2 4.8 1.0 <.1 <.1 0 0 465.2 51.9 995.7 82.1

1993 540.7 31.1 9.4 0.9 <.1 <.1 0 0 263.1 27.6 813.2 59.6Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
87

Table 24—Columbia River commercial landings of salmon and steelhead by treaty Indian

fishers using dip nets at Celilo Falls, 1938-56a

Year Chinook Cohob Sockeye Steelhead Total

In thousands

1938 1,311.5 — 86.5 262.9 1,660.9

1939 1,087.5 — 71.6 186.8 1,345.9

1940 1,616.5 — 155.4 340.9 2,112.8

1941 3,038.2 — 106.2 320.5 3,464.9

1942 2,464.6 — 47.9 274.0 2,786.5

1943 1,548.3 — 27.5 214.7 1,790.5

1944 1,273.4 — 16.3 303.5 1,593.2

1945 941.9 — 3.8 302.1 1,247.8

1946 1,927.1 — 22.9 345.3 2,295.3

1947 2,120.6 — 119.6 245.6 2,485.8

1948 2,600.0 — 51.6 188.3 2,839.9

1949 1,011.5 — 12.6 211.6 1,235.7

1950 1,516.8 — 45.4 156.1 1,718.3

1951 1,474.8 — 32.3 255.9 1,763.0

1952 1,790.7 — 88.2 407.0 2,285.9

1953 1,120.8 — 48.5 500.7 1,670.0

1954 570.5 — 45.0 180.7 796.2

1955 1,475.6 — 168.6 338.9 1,983.1

1956 634.6 — 105.6 170.7 910.9

 Totalc 32,520.0

a The dipnet fishery at Celilo Falls ended in 1957 when the falls was inundated by the construction of The Dalles Dam.

b Coho landings were usually less than 500 fish annually.

c Average is 1,712.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
88

Appendix E

Table 25—Columbia River commercial catch of white sturgeon, 1889-1939

Zones 1-5 Zone 6

Year (below Bonneville Dam) (above Bonneville Dam) Total

Thousands of pounds

1889 — — 1746.7

1890 — — 3,084.9

1891 — — 3,562.0

1892 — — 5,466.8

1893-94 — — ND

1895 — — 4,704.5

1896-98 — — ND

1899 — — 73.3

1900-03 — — ND

1904 — — 137.7

1905-14 — — ND

1915 — — 134.9

1916-22 — — ND

1923 — — 182.9

1924 — — ND

1925 — — 231.4

1926 — — 209.1

1927 — — 211.5

1928 — — 147.5

1929 — — 159.6

1930 — — 129.4

1931 — — 112.9

1932 — — 71.4

1933 — — 84.5

1934 — — 79.1

1935 — — 72.8

1936 — — 131.3

1937 — — 127.3

1938 28.5 39.1 67.6

1939 45.7 28.2 73.9

ND = no data.

Sources: PSMFC 1992, WDFW 1994, and ODFW 1994.
89

Table 26—Columbia River white and green sturgeon commercial landings, 1938-93

(in thousands)

White sturgeon Green sturgeon,

Year Zones 1-5a Zone 6 Zones 1-6 total

Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No.

1938 28.5 — 39.1 — 67.6 — 10.8 —

1939 45.7 — 28.2 — 73.9 — 16.1 —

1940 54.2 — 29.7 — 83.9 — 15.3 —

1941 60.6 — 24.0 — 84.6 — 10.1 —

1942 58.5 — 36.7 — 95.2 — 5.5 —

1943 86.0 — 30.1 — 116.1 — 6.1 —

1944 178.5 — 58.5 — 237.0 — 11.1 —

1945 195.6 — 70.5 — 266.1 — 19.0 —

1946 211.9 — 99.6 — 311.5 — 16.9 —

1947 215.7 — 159.4 — 375.1 — 11.8 —

1948 388.1 — 187.3 — 575.4 — 11.3 —

1949 249.2 — 142.6 — 391.8 — 18.9 —

1950 266.8 — 60.3 — 327.1 — 33.0 —

1951 225.5 — 31.9 — 257.4 — 22.3 —

1952 233.4 — 37.5 — 270.9 — 35.1 —

1953 322.7 — 23.9 — 346.6 — 34.7 —

1954 293.5 — 17.6 — 311.1 — 30.1 —

1955 202.8 — 20.1 — 222.9 — 70.8 —

1956 227.6 — 16.3 — 243.9 — 50.7 —

1957 303.6 — 8.1 — 311.7 — 112.8 —

1958 240.4 — 19.7 — 260.1 — 76.6 —

1959 167.5 — 35.9 — 203.4 — 192.2 —

1960 173.1 4.3 11.0 .2 184.1 4.5 71.3 1.8

1961 174.0 4.4 9.3 .2 183.3 4.6 119.2 3.0

1962 196.5 4.9 4.1 .1 200.6 5.0 65.3 1.6

1963 207.8 5.2 4.2 .1 212.0 5.3 50.3 1.2

1964 135.8 3.4 3.8 .1 139.6 3.5 30.0 .8

1965 150.1 3.8 7.9 .2 158.0 4.0 32.4 .8
90

Table 26—Columbia River white and green sturgeon commercial landings, 1938-93

(in thousands)—(continued)

White sturgeon Green sturgeon,

Year Zones 1-5a Zone 6 Zones 1-6 total

Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No. Lb. No.

1966 221.2 5.5 5.0 .1 226.2 5.6 70.9 1.8

1967 151.1 3.8 8.6 .2 159.7 4.0 46.1 1.1

1968 141.1 3.5 10.6 .2 151.7 3.7 24.7 .6

1969 293.4 7.5 16.6 .4 310.0 7.9 68.4 1.7

1970 250.0 6.3 15.3 .4 265.3 6.7 51.1 1.3

1971 280.2 7.2 31.3 .7 311.5 7.9 52.4 1.3

1972 297.5 7.6 30.5 .7 328.0 8.3 46.2 1.1

1973 389.5 10.7 41.5 1.1 431.0 11.8 34.5 1.3

1974 345.0 10.7 26.6 .5 371.6 11.2 121.8 3.1

1975 454.5 14.0 29.3 0.6 483.8 14.6 42.9 1.3

1976 732.7 22.8 24.4 0.6 757.1 23.4 89.5 3.0

1977 320.7 9.7 20.2 0.6 340.9 10.3 23.5 0.8

1978 288.5 9.8 20.7 0.7 309.2 10.5 48.7 1.7

1979 533.8 20.5 38.8 1.3 572.6 21.8 36.8 1.2

1980 263.2 9.4 53.4 1.8 316.6 11.2 44.6 1.7

1981 419.9 14.9 70.4 2.0 490.3 16.9 5.1 0.2

1982 353.0 11.6 44.8 1.3 397.8 12.9 24.4 0.8

1983 398.6 12.4 48.7 1.4 447.3 13.8 18.6 0.7

1984 524.4 17.5 88.3 2.8 612.7 20.3 84.5 2.7

1985 270.4 8.4 168.5 5.0 438.9 13.4 41.0 1.6

1986 373.9 11.6 322.1 9.5 696.0 21.1 180.6 6.0

1987 307.0 9.7 384.1 11.1 691.1 20.8 145.7 4.9

1988 217.1 6.8 136.6 4.1 353.7 10.9 114.1 3.3

1989 162.0 5.0 126.7 3.5 288.7 8.5 47.8 1.7

1990 176.2 5.3 115.5 3.4 291.7 8.7 64.9 2.2

1991 120.6 3.8 46.7 1.5 167.3 5.3 89.0 3.2

1992 172.4 6.2 54.1 1.6 226.5 7.8 62.3 2.2

1993 218.9 8.1 61.6 2.0 280.5 10.1 66.4 2.2

a Includes Youngs Bay (1979 to present) and Washington (1980-82) terminal landings.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
91

Table 27—Columbia River Shad commercial landings, 1938-93 (in thousands)

Year Zones 1 -5 Zone 6 Zones 1-6

Pound Number Pound Number Pound Number

1938 168.0 44.8 1.7 0.4 169.7 45.2

1939 350.7 93.5 2.6 .7 353.3 94.2

1940 349.7 93.2 14.7 3.9 364.4 97.1

1941 376.1 100.3 5.0 1.3 381.1 101.6

1942 509.3 135.8 9.6 2.6 518.9 138.4

1943 321.4 85.7 2.2 .6 323.6 86.3

1944 589.8 157.2 3.3 .9 593.1 158.1

1945 877.8 234.1 32.2 8.6 910.0 242.7

1946 1,428.7 380.9 14.0 3.7 1,442.7 384.6

1947 1,291.2 344.3 6.1 1.6 1,297.3 345.9

1948 394.5 105.2 .9 .2 395.4 105.4

1949 429.7 114.5 7.2 1.9 436.9 116.4

1950 631.9 168.5 1.2 .3 633.1 168.8

1951 406.2 108.3 .3 .1 406.5 108.4

1952 342.4 91.3 .3 .1 342.7 91.4

1953 275.8 73.5 0 0 275.8 73.5

1954 246.4 65.7 0 0 246.4 65.7

1955 285.0 76.0 0 0 285.0 76.0

1956 245.4 65.4 .1 0 245.5 65.4

1957 150.1 40.0 0 0 150.1 40.0

1958 193.4 51.6 0 0 193.4 51.6

1959 135.6 36.2 0 0 135.6 36.2

1960 160.9 42.9 9.4 2.5 170.3 45.4

1961 405.9 108.2 .3 .1 406.2 108.3

1962 883.5 235.6 10.9 2.9 894.4 238.5

1963 799.7 213.2 59.6 15.9 859.3 229.1

1964 251.8 67.1 53.5 14.2 305.3 81.3

1965 327.2 87.2 27.7 7.4 354.9 94.6

1966 770.6 205.5 15.8 4.2 786.4 209.7

1967 831.8 221.8 21.4 5.7 853.2 227.5

1968 305.7 81.5 5.1 1.4 310.8 82.9
92

Table 27—Columbia River Shad commercial landings, 1938-93 (in thousands)—(continued)

Year Zones 1 -5 Zone 6 Zones 1-6

Pound Number Pound Number Pound Number

1969 170.8 45.5 8.0 2.1 178.8 47.6

1970 228.1 59.1 22.6 6.4 250.7 65.5

1971 155.9 40.3 24.1 6.7 180.0 47.0

1972 216.7 55.3 16.8 4.9 233.5 60.2

1973 191.9 49.0 18.8 4.8 210.7 53.8

1974 180.7 45.9 14.5 3.6 195.2 49.5

1975 239.9 64.5 29.8 8.5 269.7 73.0

1976 232.8 60.9 71.1 19.4 303.9 80.3

1977 241.2 61.9 2.1 .6 243.3 62.5

1978 441.6 113.6 18.7 5.6 460.3 119.2

1979 468.2 120.3 24.8 7.9 493.0 128.2

1980 88.9 23.2 .7 .2 89.6 23.4

1981 66.7 21.8 0 0 66.7 21.8

1982 291.4 75.0 6.0 1.5 297.4 76.5

1983 270.2 85.0 1.2 .3 271.4 85.3

1984 57.1 18.1 8.8 3.1 65.9 21.2

1985 111.1 35.4 0 0 111.1 35.4

1986 308.5 88.2 2.4 .7 310.9 88.9

1987 313.6 108.7 36.4 12.3 350.0 121.0

1988 326.4 108.5 59.0 19.2 385.4 127.7

1989 143.8 51.6 .3 .1 144.1 51.7

1990 450.2 167.8 .5 .2 450.7 168.0

1991 120.8 43.1 <.1 <.1 120.8 43.2

1992 395.2 141.4 .8 .3 396.0 141.7

1993 405.2 144.7 2.8 1.0 408.0 145.7

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
93

Table 28—Partial Walleye sport catch estimates for Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day

pools, 1981-93a

Year Bonneville pool The Dalles pool John Day pool Survey total

1981 0 2,062 164 2,226

1982 NS NS NS NS

1983 NS NS 463 463

1984 NS NS 349 349

1985 NS NS 186 186

1986 NS NS 291 291

1987 NS 1,660 NS 1,660

1988 394 3,480 NS 3,874

1989 1,066 7,556 1,718 10,340

1990 1,351 NS 3,088 4,439

1991 NS NS 2,207 2,207

1992 100 1,000 1,780 2,880

1993 82 2,200 2,746 5,028

NS = pool not surveyed.

a Partial catch estimates based on results of limited creel surveys conducted during predator-prey and sturgeon research

programs.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
94

Appendix F

Washington

Upper Columbia

Snake River

Mid-Columbia Lower Columbia

Oregon

Idaho

11 10

9

8

7

6

5

4 12

13 14 15

16

17

18

1 2 3

Figure 4—Major dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Numbers in the

map correspond to the dams in the first column of the accompanying table.

Gross Adult

Year in Miles to head Miles of fish

Dam service mouth (feet) reservoir Operator passage

1. Bonneville 1938 146 65 45 Corps of Engineers Yes

2. The Dalles 1957 192 85 31 Corps of Engineers Yes

3. John Day 1968 216 105 76 Corps of Engineers Yes

4. McNary 1953 292 75 61 Corps of Engineers Yes

5. Priest Rapids 1959 397 82 18 Grant County PUD Yes

6. Wanapum 1963 416 84 38 Grant County PUD Yes

7. Rock Island 1933 453 54 21 Chelan County PUD Yes

8. Rocky Reach 1961 474 93 42 Chelan County PUD Yes

9. Wells 1967 515 72 `30 Douglas County PUD Yes

10. Chief Joseph 1955 545 177 51 Corps of Engineers No

11. Grand Coulee 1941 597 343 151 Bureau of Reclamation No

12. Ice Harbor 1961 334 100 32 Corps of Engineers Yes

13. Lower Monumental 1969 366 100 29 Corps of Engineers Yes

14. Little Goose 1970 395 100 37 Corps of Engineers Yes

15. Lower Granite 1975 432 98 39 Corps of Engineers Yes

16. Hells Canyon 1967 571 210 22 Idaho Power Company No

17. Oxbow 1961 597 120 12 Idaho Power Company No

18. Brownlee 1958 609 272 57 Idaho Power Company No

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
95

Canada

Historically inaccessible

Access blocked

Presently accessible

Figure 5—Basin areas accessible to salmon. Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
96

Table 29—Dams in salmonid habitat in the basin by river reach

Area Hydropower dams Multipurpose dams Total dams

Columbia River below

 Bonneville Dam 17 19 36

Columbia River above

 Bonneville Dam to

 Snake River mouth 6 8 14

Columbia River between

 Snake River and Chief

 Joseph Dam 4 10 14

Columbia above Chief

 Joseph Dam 15 18 33

Snake River below Hells

 Canyon Dam 0 9 9

Snake River above Hells

 Canyon Dam 16 14 30

 Total basin 58 78 136

Source: NPPC 1986.
97

Appendix G

Table 30—Fish hatcheries in the basina

Hatchery name River Year and operator Species

Big Canyon Wallowa River 1988 ODFWa ChS

Bonifer Umatilla River 1984 Umatilla Tribe ChF

Carson Wind River 1937 USDI FWSb ChS

Cascade Eagle Creek (Col. River) 1958 ODFW ChF, coho

Crooked River South Fork Clearwater River 1990 IDFGb ChS

Dworshak North Fork Clearwater River 1969 USDI FWS ChS

East Bank Upper Columbia River 1989 WDFb ChF, coho

Entiat Entiat River 1942 USDI FWS ChS

Hells Canyon Snake River 1965 IDFG ChS

Imnaha Imnaha River 1982 ODFWb ChS

Irrigon Mid-Columbia River 1985 ODFW ChF

Klickitat Klickitat River 1951 WDFW ChF, coho

Kooskia South Fork Clearwater River 1966 USDI FWS ChS

Leavenworth Icicle Creek 1938 USDI FWS ChS

Little White Salmon Lower White Salmon River 1898 USDI FWS ChF, ChS, coho

Lookingglass Lookinggrass Creek 1982 ODFW ChS

Lyon’s Ferry Snake River 1983 WDF ChS, ChF

McCall South Fork Salmon River 1976 IDFG ChR

Minthorn Umatilla River 1986 Umatilla Tribe ChF, coho

Oxbow Herman Creek 1938 ODFW ChF, coho

Oxbow Snake River 1962 IDFG Steelhead

Pahsimeroi Pahsimeroi River 1970 IDFG ChR

Powell Lochsa River 1989 IDFG ChS

Priest Rapids Upper Columbia River 1963 WDF ChF

Rapid River Rapid River 1964 IDFG ChS

Red River South Fork Clearwater River 1987 IDFG ChS

Ringold Upper Columbia River 1966 WDF ChS

Rocky Reach Upper Columbia River 1961 WDF ChF, coho

Round Butte Deschutes River 1972 ODFW ChS
98

Table 30—Fish hatcheries in the basin (continued)a

Hatchery name River Year and operator Species

Sawtooth Salmon River 1985 IDFG ChS

Spring Creek Mid-Columbia River 1901 USDI FWS ChF

Three-Mile Umatilla River 1988 ODFW ChF, ChS, coho

Tucannon Tucannon River 1971 WDWb ChS

Warm Spring Warm Springs River 1977 USDI FWS ChS

Wells Upper Columbia River 1967 WDF ChR

Willard Lower White Salmon River 1967 WDFW Coho

Winthrop Methow River 1942 USDI FWS ChS

a Basin salmon hatcheries = 37.

b IDFG = Idaho Department of Fish and Game; ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; USDI FWS = U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service; WDF = Washington Department of Fisheries; WDW = Washington Department of Wildlife; WDFW =

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Ch F = fall chinook; Ch S = spring chinook; Ch R = summer chinook.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
99

Appendix H

Table 31—Important Columbia River fishery management events

Year Event

1818 United States and Britain agree on joint occupancy of Oregon country.

1843 Oregon Provisional Government established.

1846 Treaty between the United States and Great Britain set at Forty-Ninth Parallel.

1848 Treaty between the United States and Mexico.

1853 Washington Territory created.

1855 Treaties between the United States and some Columbia River Indian tribes signed.

1859 Oregon Statehood.

1861 Commercial fishing became an important industry.

1866 Salmon canning began. Washington passed its first salmon fishing gear regulation.

1877 Washington established first closed fishing periods (Oregon followed in 1878).

1878 Oregon Fish Commission established. Oregon passed its first gear regulation.

1879 First fish wheel on the Columbia River.

1883 Peak harvests of Columbia River salmon.

1887 Oregon established a three-person State Board of Commissioners to enforce fish and game laws.

 First fish hatchery established in Oregon.

1889 Montana Statehood. Washington Statehood.

1890 Idaho Statehood. Wyoming Statehood. Washington Department of Fisheries and Game

 established.

1893 State Game and Fish Protector position established in Oregon (beginning of combined fish and

 game administration in Oregon).

1895 Washington State Fish Commission created.

1897 Washington established closed season for sturgeon March 1 through November 1

 (Oregon followed in 1899).

1898 Oregon split fish and game programs and created a Board of Fish Commissioners comprised of

 governor, secretary of state, and fish commissioner. A Board of Game Commissioners

 followed in 1899.

1899 Beginning of joint Oregon and Washington fishery management (joint committees of the two

 legislatures met in an effort to agree on Columbia fishing regulations). Chinese sturgeon lines

 (snagging setlines) prohibited. Sturgeon minimum commercial size set at 48 inches.

1901 Oregon established the Master Fish Warden position.

1903 Washington established a game code and county commissioners appointed game wardens.

1909 Sturgeon allowed to be taken at times and in areas open to commercial salmon fishing. Beginning

 of consistent Oregon and Washington seasons. Upper deadline established at mouth of

 Deschutes River.
100

Table 31—Important Columbia River fishery management events (continued)

Year Event

1911 Oregon’s Fish and Game boards combined to form the Board of Fish and Game Commissioners

 comprised of three members appointed by the governor.

1912 Troll salmon fishing began off the mouth of the Columbia.

1913 Position of Washington Chief Game Warden created.

1915 Washington regulation of game, game fish, and food fish combined under the authority of the State

 Game Warden. Oregon abolished Board of Fish and Game Commissioners and replaced with

 Fish and Game Commission, with the governor chair of three-member commission. Legislatures

 of Oregon and Washington created the Columbia River Fish Compact for joint regulation of

 Columbia River commercial fisheries.

1917 Purse seines prohibited in the Columbia River.

1918 United States Congress ratified the compact and agreement between Oregon and Washington

 covering concurrent jurisdiction of Columbia River fisheries.

1920 Oregon replaced the 1915 body with Board of Fish and Game Commissioners.

1921 Oregon established separate fish (three members) and game (five members) commissions with

 members to be appointed by the legislature and later by the governor. Washington abolished the

 State fish commission and replaced it with a Department of Fisheries and Game. Oregon landings

 of salmon, shad, and sturgeon taxed.

1923 Whip seines prohibited in the Columbia River. Oregon fish dealers required to report purchases

 to the state.

1927 Fish wheels prohibited in Oregon (followed by the Washington prohibition in 1935). Commercial

 fishing prohibited in Willamette River.

1932 Washington legislature separated food fish and game fish management and created the

 Department of Fisheries under an appointed director and the Department of Game under a

 six-person commission. United States Army Corps of Engineers completes master plan for

 10 Columbia River dams.

1934 Commercial take or sale of steelhead in Washington prohibited. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

 gave Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce authority to provide technical assistance and to

 cooperate with other Federal and state agencies.

1935 Haul (drag) seines, traps, and set nets prohibited in Washington (followed by the Oregon prohibition

 in 1949—effective September 14, 1950). Fish wheels prohibited in Washington.

1937 Oregon and Washington fisheries officials permitted to change seasons (formerly only the state

 legislatures could change seasons). Bonneville Power Administration created.

1938 Bonneville Dam completed. Commercial fishery prohibited 5 miles below (Beacon Rock) and 15

 miles above the dam. Mitchell Act required fish and wildlife mitigation in water resource projects.

1941 Grand Coulee Dam completed.

1946 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act amended to require Federal and state agencies to consult on

 water resource projects.
101

Table 31—Important Columbia River fishery management events (continued)

Year Event

1948 Staggered season for the area above Bonneville Dam (season opened and closed later than that in

 effect below the dam). Idaho, Oregon, and Washington fish agencies sign agreement with U.S.

 Fish and Wildlife Service to repair damage to fish by upriver developments. Pacific States Marine

 Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) established by Congress.

1949 Haul (drag) seines, traps, and set nets prohibited in Oregon (effective September 14, 1950). Lower

 Columbia River Fisheries Development Program appropriation.

1950 Sturgeon maximum size for all fisheries set at 72 inches. Sturgeon minimum size first established

 for sport fisheries set at 30 inches.

1951 Oregon’s Master Fish Warden position changed to State Fisheries Director.

1953 Special shad-only season first established (in the area of Camas and Washougal).

1957 Celilo Falls inundated by The Dalles Dam ending the tribal fishery.

1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act amended to require “equal consideration” for fish and wildlife

 conservation in water-development projects.

1964 Last summer commercial salmon season for zones 1-5.

1965 Last summer commercial salmon season for zone 6.

1967 Hells Canyon Dam completed.

1968 Commercial fishing reestablished by states above Bonneville Dam exclusively for treaty Indian

 fishers. Law suit United States v. Oregon filed. Governors of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho

 established the Columbia River Fisheries Advisory Council composed of the fish and game

 directors of the three states.

1969 Zone 6 fishing area (Bridge of the Gods to mouth Umatilla River), river mouth closures, dam

 sanctuaries, and gear regulations established. United States v. Oregon decision (Belloni decision).

1971 United States v. Washington filed.

1974 United States v. Washington decision (Boldt decision) allocates salmon fishing 50-50 between

 treaty and nontreaty fishing. (Extended to Columbia River in 1975.)

1975 Oregon’s separate fish and wildlife commissions merged forming the Oregon Department of Fish

 and Wildlife with a seven-member Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. Sale of steelhead in

 Oregon by non-Indians prohibited. Lower Granite Dam completed, last of 18 major main-stem

 Snake and Columbia dams finished 1933-75.

1976 Limited entry system in effect in Washington. Congress passes Fishery Conservation and Manage-

 ment Act (later named the Magnuson Act).

1977 Court approves 5-year management and allocation agreement regarding upper Columbia fish runs.

 Four Columbia River treaty Indian tribes establish Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission.

 Last spring commercial salmon seasons in zones 1-6.

1979 United States Supreme Court affirms Boldt decision in United States v. Washington State

 Passenger Fishing Vessel Association.
102

Table 31—Important Columbia River fishery management events (continued)

Year Event

1980 Congress passes the Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. Limited entry

 system in effect in Oregon

1985 United States - Canada Pacific Salmon Interception Treaty signed.

1988 Court approves the United States v. Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan. Sturgeon

 setline fishing below Bonneville Dam phased out under Washington legislative statute. Last

 commercial sockeye seasons for zones 1-6 .

1990 “Salmon Summit.” Snake River salmon proposed for listing under Endangered Species Act.

1991 Snake River sockeye salmon listed as an endangered species. Convention for the Conservation of

 Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean concluded (United States, Russia, Japan, and

 Canada).

1992 Snake River wild spring and summer and fall chinook salmon listed as a threatened species. United

 Nations Moratorium on High Seas Drift Net Fishing.

1993 Washington legislature passed merger of Washington’s Department of Fisheries and Department of

 Wildlife into the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

1994 Snake River wild spring and summer and fall chinook listed as endangered species.

Sources: Modified from WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
103

Appendix I

Washington

Oregon

Zones 1-5

Drift fill-net fishery

140 miles of river open to commercial fishing 140 miles of river open to commercial fishing

Treaty Indian set-net fishery

Zone 6

1 2

3

4 5

Bonneville

Portland Dam

Astoria

The Dalles

Dam Dam

John Day

McNary

Dam

John Day River

Rock Creek

Deschutes River

U m atill a River

Columbia River

0 15 30

miles

Pa

cific

O

c

e

a

n

Figure 7—The Columbia River below McNary Dam showing areas open to commercial fishing. Sources: WDFW

1994 and ODFW 1994.
104

Table 32—Commercial fishing zones and areas on the Columbia River

Area Description

Zone 1 Easterly of a line projected from the knuckle of the south jetty on the Oregon bank to the

 inshore end of the north jetty on the Washington bank, and westerly of a line projected from

 a beacon light at Grays Point on the Washington bank to the flashing 4-second red buoy

 “44” off the easterly tip of Tongue Point on the Oregon bank.

Zone 2 Easterly of a line projected from a beacon light at Grays Point on the Washington bank to

 the flashing 4-second red buoy “44” off the easterly tip of Tongue Point on the Oregon

 bank, and westerly of a line projected from the 4-second flashing green light “81” on the

 Washington bank to a boundary marker on the easterly end of the Beaver Terminal Pier in

 Oregon, including all waters of Grays Bay, those waters of Deep River downstream of the

 Highway 4 bridge, all waters of Seal Slough, those waters of Grays River downstream of a

 line projected between fishing boundary markers on both banks at the Leo Reisticka farm,

 and those waters of Elokomin Slough and Elokomin river downstream of the Highway 4

 bridge.

Zone 3 Easterly of a line projected from the 4-second flashing green light “81” on the Washington

 bank to a boundary marker on the easterly end of the Beaver Terminal Pier in Oregon, and

 westerly of a line projected true west from the east or upstream bank of the Lewis River

 mouth in Washington.

Zone 4 Easterly of a line projected true west from the east or upstream bank of the Lewis

 River in Washington, and westerly of a line projected true north from Rooster Rock on the

 Oregon bank, and those waters of Camas Slough downstream of the westernmost

 powerline crossing at the Crown Zellerbach mill.

Zone 5 Easterly of a line projected true north from Rooster Rock on the Oregon bank, and westerly

 of a line projected from a deadline marker on the Oregon bank to a deadline marker on the

 Washington bank, both such deadline markers located about 5 miles downstream from

 Bonneville Dam.

Area 2S From a downstream boundary of a true north/south line through flashing red 4-second light

 “50” near the Oregon bank to an upstream boundary of a straight line from a deadline

 marker on the Oregon bank to a deadline marker on the Washington bank, both such

 deadline markers located about 5 miles downstream from Bonneville Dam.

Washougal Reef Area lying within a line commencing at the green 6-second equal-interval light about 3/4 mile

 shad area east of the Washougal Woolen Mill pipeline and projected westerly to the Washougal

 blinker light (light “50”); thence continuing westerly to the green 4-second blinker light on

 the east end of Lady Island; thence easterly and northerly along the shoreline of Lady

 Island to the State Highway 14 bridge; thence easterly across State Highway 14 bridge

 to the mainland.

Youngs Bay Waters of Youngs Bay and river upstream from an imaginary line running parallel to and 150

 terminal salmon feet upstream from the new Highway 101 bridge to deadline markers at the mouth of the

 fishing area Battle Creek Slough except for those waters southerly of a line from the Visual-Omni-

 Range (VOR) at the Port of Astoria Airport through buoy 11 to a marker on the opposite

 bank.

Big Creek Calendar and Big Creek sloughs east from boundary markers at the west end of Minaker

 terminal salmon Island, upstream to deadline markers about 1/4-mile east of the mouth of Big Creek.

 fishing area

Zone 6 Three-pool area between Bonneville and McNary Dams.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
105

Table 33—Treaty commercial fishery in the basin (zone 6) 1980 to presenta

White Total, all

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye Steelhead sturgeon Shad Walleye species c

Thousands of dollars

1981 974.9 12.2 0 119.6 69.0 0 1,175.7

1982 704.5 23.2 .7 107.1 45.2 .9 881.7

1983 356.3 .7 4.4 120.7 48.7 .2 531.0

1984 1,028.5 8.4 85.0 953.8 120.1 .7 2,196.5

1985 1,213.5 28.8 170.5 360.1 235.9 0 2,008.8

1986 1,607.7 72.1 19.7 382.9 521.8 .3 2,604.5

1987 4,504.5 16.6 219.0 829.2 672.2 1.5 6,243.0

1988 6,483.1 69.2 246.4 1,093.7 266.4 5.9 8,164.7

1989 1,831.9 8.9 .1 319.1 269.9 .1 6.1 2,436.1

1990 2,082.3 5.6 0 268.1 242.6 .1 2.2 2,600.9

1991 569.9 29.5 0 187.5 110.7 0 3.2 900.8

1992 467.9 3.2 0 307.0 121.2 .1 5.2 904.6

1993 362.3 7.4 0 134.1 108.4 .4 4.2 616.8

 Avg. 1,707.0 22.0 57.0 399.0 218.0 .8 4.0b 2,408.0

 Avg.,

 1993 ($) 2,119.0 27.0 71.0 495.0 270.0 1.0 5.0 2,988.0

a Ex-vessel value $1,000 − nominal dollars unless elsewhere indicated.

b 5-year average.

c Rounding errors may affect some totals.

Sources: WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.

Appendix J

Figure 8—Tribal and nontribal percentages

of Columbia River commercial landings of

salmon and steelhead. Sources: WDFW

1994 and ODFW 1994.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percentage

Year

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Nontribal

Tribal
106

Appendix K

Table 34—Nontreaty Columbia River commercial landings 1980 to presenta

White Total all

Year Chinook Coho Sockeye sturgeon Shad species

Thousand of dollars

1981 1,307.3 512.7 0 449.3 16.7 2,286.0

1982 1,935.1 1,353.9 0 381.2 64.1 3,734.3

1983 843.2 47.1 0 462.4 45.9 1,398.6

1984 1,745.1 1,854.4 37.0 723.7 12.6 4,372.8

1985 1,687.9 1,371.2 128.5 416.4 21.1 3,625.1

1986 2,524.7 6,724.0 7.6 590.8 64.8 9,911.9

1987 8,644.4 2,443.4 164.5 491.2 62.7 11,806.2

1988 13,771.6 5,820.1 111.7 388.6 52.2 20,144.2

1989 2,899.5 2,294.7 0 290.0 28.8 5,513.0

1990 2,197.3 578.3 0 354.2 72.0 3,201.8

1991 1,502.0 2,121.5 0 223.1 27.8 3,874.4

1992 618.6 269.1 0 274.1 71.1 1,232.9

1993 347.1 214.9 0 260.5 64.8 887.3

 Avg. 3,078.7 1,969.6 34.6 408.1 46.5 5,537.6

 Basin (%) 95.0b <10c 100.0d <5e 70.0f NA

 Basin avg. value 2,925.0 197.0 35.0 20.0 33.0 3,210.0

 Basin avg. value in

 1993 dollars 3,632.0 244.0 42.0 24.0 40.0 3,985.0

NA = not available.

a Ex-vessel value $1,000 − nominal dollars unless elsewhere indicated.

b Based on USDE and others 1994d, appendix O.

c Author’s estimate based on USDE and others 1994b, appendix C-1 table 19.

d All sockeye in lower basin are from above Bonneville.

e Author estimate based on PSMFC 1992.

f Author estimate based on WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.

Sources: Derived from WDFW 1994 and ODFW 1994.
107

Figure 10b—Wildlife management regions in

Washington. Source: USDI FWS 1989d.

Appendix L

2 3 1

5 4 6

8

6 3

5

4 2 1

7

9

1

2

6

3

4

5

1

2

6

7

3

4

5

Figure 9a—Wildlife management

regions in Idaho. Source: USDI

FWS 1989a.

Figure 9b—Wildlife management regions in Montana.

Source: USDI FWS 1989b.

Figure 10a—Wildlife management regions in

Oregon. Source: USDI FWS 1989c.
108

Table 35—Freshwater fisheries-associated recreation in the basin, 1991

Parameter Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total no.

Total anglers: 365,000 342,000 605,000 681,000 1,993,000

 Resident no. 232,000 164,000 457,000 626,000 1,479,000

 Resident (%) 64 48 76 92 74

 Nonresident no. 133,000 178,000 147,000 56,000 514,000

 Nonresident (%) 36 52 24 8 26

Basin anglers:a 365,000 135,774 225,060 397,023 1,122,857

 Resident no. 232,000 68,430 178,022 329,926 808,378

 Resident (%) 64.0 50.7 79.1 83.1 72

 Nonresident no. 133,000 67,344 47,037 67,097 314,478

 Nonresident (%) 36 49.6 20.1 16.9 28

Total days fishing: 3,157,000 3,156,000 6,490,000 8,583,000 21,386,000

 Resident no. 2,495,000 1,872,000 5,817,000 8,285,000 18,469,000

 Resident (%) 79 59 90 97 86

 Nonresident no. 662,000 1,284,000 674,000 298,000 2,918,000

 Nonresident (%) 21 41 10 3 14

Basin days fishing: 3,157,000 959,424 1,518,660 4,617,654 10,252,738

 Resident no. 2,495,000 767,539 1,131,401 4,128,182 8,522,122

 Resident (%) 79.0 80.0 74.5 89.4 83.1

 Nonresident no. 662,000 191,885 387,259 489,472 1,730,616

 Nonresident (%) 21 20.0 25.5 10.6 16.9

Total fishing expenditures

 ($1,000)b 145,456 71,200 461,297 1,009,309 1,687,262

 Total anglers 365,000 342,000 717,000* 995,000* 2,419,000

 Basin anglers 365,000 135,774 225,060 397,023 1,122,857

 Basin (%) num 100 39.7 31.4 39.9 46.4

Basin fishing expenditures

 ($1,000) 145,456 28,266 144,847 404,714 723,283**

* = Total freshwater and saltwater anglers for Oregon and Washington (USDI FWS 1993, table 60); ** = sum of total weightings.

a Basin values assume the pattern and distribution of activities remains proportional to 1985 data (USDI FWS 1989a, 1989b,

1989c, 1989d, table 23; USDI FWS 1993, table 65).

b Assigns same value to all types of fishing. Basin values for salmon, freshwater (cold and warm), and resident vs. nonresident

not distinguished in original source (USDI FWS 1993, table 68).
109

Table 36—Freshwater fisheries associated recreation in the basin in Idaho, 1985

Parameter Total Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6

Anglers: 455.0 69.5 44.0 170.6 109.6 80.9 128.1

 Resident no. 278.4 28.3 39.3 122.6 63.7 55.7 86.0

 Resident (%) 61.2 40.7 89.3 71.9 58.1 68.9 67.1

 Nonresident no. 176.7 41.2 (4.7) 48.1 46.0* 25.2 42.1

 Nonresident (%) 38.8 71.7 10.7 28.1 41.9 31.1 32.9

Days fishing 6,622.4 1,118.2 439.0 1,927.7 954.6 874.5 1,308.7

Fishing trips 5,617.4 699.6 367.2 1,769.1 842.2 801.6 1,127.9

Resident no.:

 DF 5,104.6 530.7 409.6 1,786.2 629.1 742.6 1,006.7

 FT 4,618.8 466.3 346.2 1,659.4 555.5 711.8 879.9

Resident (%):

 DF 77.1 47.5 93.3 92.7 65.9 84.9 76.9

 FT 82.2 66.7 94.3 93.8 66.0 88.8 78.0

Nonresident no.:

 DF 1,517.9 587.5 — 141.6* 325.5* 132.0 302.0

 FT 998.6 233.4 — 109.8* 286.7* 89.0 258.0

Nonresident (%):

 DF 22.9 52.5 6.7* 7.2* 34.1 15.1 23.1

 FT 17.8 33.3 5.7* 6.2* 34.0 11.2 22.0

* = estimate based on small sample size.

— = sample size too small to report data reliably.

Source: USDI FWS 1989a, table 23.
110

Table 37—Freshwater fisheries associated recreation in the basin in Montana, 1985

Parameter Total Region 1 Region 2 Basin Basin (%)

Anglers: 371.6 99.1 48.4 147.5 39.7

 Resident no. 212.4 47.2 27.1 74.3 35.0

 Resident (%) 62.5 47.6 56.0 50.4

 Nonresident no. 139.2 51.9 21.3 73.2

 Nonresident (%) 37.5 52.4 44.0 49.6

Days fishing 4,952.1 1,110.6 393.7 1,504.3 30.4

Fishing trips 3,908.3 893.0 310.7 1,203.7 30.8

Resident no.

 DF 3,602.5 899.7 283.7 1,183.4 32.8

 FT 3,146.4 822.1 240.6 1,062.7 29.6

Resident (%):

 DF 72.7 81.0 72.1 80.0

 FT 80.5 92.0 77.4 88.3

Nonresident no.:

 DF 1,349.7 211.0 110.1 321.1 23.8

 FT 762.0 70.9 70.2 141.1 18.5

Nonresident (%):

 DF 27.3 19.0 27.9 20.0

 FT 19.5 8.0 22.6 11.7

* = estimate based on small sample size.

Source: USDI FWS 1989b, table 23.
111

Table 38—Freshwater fisheries associated recreation in the basin in Oregon

Parameter Total Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Basin Basin (%)

Anglers: 943.3 72.4 87.9 23.1* 167.2 350.6 37.2

 Resident no. 647.5 62.3 58.3 (3.7)a 153.1 277.4 35.1

 Resident (%) 68.6 86.0 66.3 16.0 91.6 79.1

 Nonresident no. 295.9 (10.1) 29.7 19.4 14.2 73.4

 Nonresident % 31.4 14.0 33.7 84.0 8.4 20.9

Days fishing 14,091.3 711.1 605.6 113.4* 1,869.8 3,299.9 23.4

Fishing tips 12,031.9 595.4 469.4 90.6* 1,472.6 2,628.0 21.8

Resident no.

 DF 11,675.8 612.0 528.3 28.2 1,290.4 2,458.9 21.1

 FT 10,794.2 506.4 425.6 25.7 913.3 1,877.0 17.4

Resident (%):

 DF 82.9 86.0 87.2 24.9 69.0 74.5

 FT 89.7 85.1 90.7 28.4 62.0 71.4

Nonresident no.:

 DF 2,415.5 (99.1) 77.4* 85.2* 579.5* 841.2* 34.8

 FT 1,237.7 (89.0) 43.9* 64.9* 559.4* 757.2* 61.2

Nonresident (%):

 DF 17.1 14.0 12.8 75.1 31.0 25.5

 FT 10.3 14.9 9.3 71.6 38.0 28.6

* = estimate based on a small sample size.

a Parentheses mean sample size too small to report data reliably. Numbers shown are subtracted from resident estimates. This

was not done in source document.

Source: USDI FWS 1989c, table 23.
112

Table 39—Freshwater fisheries associated recreation in the basin in Washington, 1985

Parameter Total Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 5a Total basin Basin (%)

Anglers: 1,306.9 171.5 258.3 91.9 181.2 702.9 53.8

 Resident no. 1,025.1 152.6 231.0 91.7 108.8 584.1 57.0

 Resident (%) 78.4 89.0 89.4 99.8 60.0 83.1

 Nonresident no. 281.8 19.0 27.4* .2 72.4 119.0 42.2

 Nonresident (%): 21.6 11.0 10.6 .2 40.0 26.9

Days Fishing 21,133.5 1,997.8 5,093.4 477.3 1,812.4 9,380.0 44.4

Fishing Trips 19,233.5 1,754.9 4,476.1 251.2 1,668.7 9,150.9 42.4

Resident no.:

 DF 19,543.3 1,827.4 4,937.3 477.3 1,590.1 8,832.1 45.2

 FT 17,969.1 1,597.9 4,373.9 250.3 1,490.4 7,712.5 42.9

Resident (%):

 DF 92.5 91.5 96.9 100.0 87.7 89.4

 FT 93.4 80.0 97.7 99.6 89.3 84.3

Nonresident no.:

 DF 1,590.2 170.4 156.1* — 222.3 548.8 34.5

 FT 1,264.5 157.0 102.3* — 178.3 437.6 55.1

Nonresident (%):

 DF 7.5 8.5 3.1* — 12.3 10.6

 FT 6.6 20.0 2.3* — 10.7 15.8

 * = estimate based on small sample size; — = sample size too small to report data reliably.

a Region 5 includes Columbia River recreational fishing below Bonneville Dam almost to the mouth of the river. Thus, it considerably overstates the amount of recreation occurring in the basin for that region.

Source: USDI FWS 1989d, table 23.
113

Table 40—Saltwater fishing

Parameter Oregon Washington Total

Anglers: 225,000 504,000 729,000

 Resident no. 157,000 430,000 587,000

 Resident (%) 70 85 81

 Nonresident no. 68,000 73,000 141,000

 Nonresident (%) 30 15 19

Days fishing: 1,072,000 3,557,000 4,629,000

 Resident no. 894,000 3,303,000 4,197,000

 Resident (%) 83 93 91

 Nonresident no. 177,000 254,000 431,000

 Nonresident (%) 17 7 9

Source: USDI FWS 1993, table 67.
114

Table 41—Primary nonconsumptive fisheries oriented recreation in the basin, 1991

Parameter Idaho Montana Oregon Washington Total no.

Total participants: 382,000 558,000 882,000 1,058,000 2,880,000

 Residents 194,000 173,000 479,000 800,000 1,646,000

 Residents (%) 51 31 54 76 57

 Nonresidents 188,000 384,000 402,000 258,000 1,232,000

 Nonresidents (%) 49 69 46 24 43

Basin participants: 382,000 221,526 328,104 569,204 1,500,834

 Percent of total 100 39.7 37.2 53.8 52.1

 Fish related

 participationa 49,660 28,798 26,248 102,457 207,163

 Percentage 13 13 8 18 14

(1,000 of dollars)

Total expenditure: 68,017 102,205 362,111 511,218 1,043,551

 Trip related 39,563 34,174 119,014 298,941 491,692

 Equipment 25,171 63,986 227,909 178,044 495,110

 Other 2,283 4,045 8,449 34,232 49,009

Basin expenditure (%) 100 39.7 37.2 53.8 49.7

(1,000 of dollars)

Basin NC total 68,017 40,575 134,705 275,035 518,332

Fish related (%) 13* 13 8 18 14.4

(1,000 of dollars)

Basin fish related NC

 expenditures 8,842 5,275 10,776 49,506 74,399

* = estimated; NC = nonconsumptive.

a Fish-related noncomsumptive recreation is calculated assuming the rate for primary residential (USDI FWS 1989a, 1989b,

1989c, 1989d, table 28) activities in 1985 for each state is representative of primary nonresidential activities. Total attributable

to the basin in the state is assumed to be the same proportion as fisheries in the basin in the state.

b Noncomsumptive expenditure data derived by applying fish related percentage of primary residential activity based on 1985

data (USDI FWS 1989a,1989b,1989c,1989d, table 28) to total expenditure data.

Source: USDI FWS 1993, table 71 and table 73.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple

use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife,

and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and

management of the National Forests and National

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to

provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities

on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890