Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Recovery Plan 

for the Klickitat River Population of the 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

Distinct Population Segment 

September 2009 

Prepared by 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northwest Region 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

ii

DISCLAIMER 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which the 

best available information indicates are necessary for the conservation and survival of 

listed species. Plans are published by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

usually with the assistance of recovery teams, state agencies, local governments, salmon 

recovery boards, non-governmental organizations, interested citizens of the affected area, 

contractors, and others. ESA recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, 

official positions, or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan 

formulation, other than NMFS. They represent the official position of NMFS only after 

they have been signed by the Northwest Regional Administrator. ESA recovery plans are 

guidance and planning documents only; identification of an action to be implemented by 

any public or private party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal 

requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement 

that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in excess of 

appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the AntiDeficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery plans 

are subject to modification as dictated by new information, changes in species status, and 

the completion of recovery actions. 

With respect to the Middle Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan, where areas of 

disagreement arose between a management unit plan and the species level, distinct 

population segment (DPS) plan, NMFS worked with the relevant parties to resolve the 

differences and in a few cases, identified in the DPS plan, decided not to incorporate the 

disputed material into the DPS plan. 

ESA recovery plans provide important context for NMFS’s determinations pursuant to 

section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. However, recovery plans do not place any 

additional legal burden on NMFS or the action agency when determining whether an 

action would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify 

critical habitat. The procedures for the section 7 consultation process are described in 50 

CFR 402 and are applicable regardless of whether or not the actions are described in a 

recovery plan. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

iii

Contents 

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ xiv

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... xvi

Purpose of Plan ......................................................................................................................... xvi

Context of Plan Development ................................................................................................. xvii

Biological Background .......................................................................................................... xviii

Recovery Goals and Criteria .................................................................................................... xxi

Threats Criteria and Approach ............................................................................................... xxii

Current Status Assessment ..................................................................................................... xxiii

Limiting Factors and Threats ................................................................................................ xxiii

Recovery Strategy and Actions ................................................................................................ xxv

Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................... xxviii

Implementation ....................................................................................................................... xxix

Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management .................................................................. xxx

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of Plan ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.1.1 ESA Requirements ........................................................................................................ 3

1.1.2 Coordination with Others.............................................................................................. 3

1.2 Context of Plan Development ............................................................................................... 5

1.2.1 Technical Recovery Teams ........................................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Planning Forums ........................................................................................................... 6

1.3 How NMFS Intends to Use the Plan ..................................................................................... 8

2. Biological Background.................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Populations and Major Population Groups ........................................................................... 9

2.2 Physical Setting ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Ecosystem Conditions ......................................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.2 Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 14

2.3.3 Riparian Function and Condition ................................................................................ 15

2.3.4 Migration Barriers ...................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Life History Characteristics ................................................................................................ 17

3. Recovery Goals and Viability Criteria ...................................................................... 26

3.1 Recovery Goals ................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Biological Viability Criteria ................................................................................................ 27

3.2.1 DPS and MPG Viability Criteria ................................................................................ 27

3.2.2 Application of Biological Viability Criteria to Klickitat Population .......................... 28

3.3 Threats Criteria ................................................................................................................... 29

4. Current Status Assessment ........................................................................................ 33

4.1 ICTRT Status Assessment .................................................................................................. 33

4.1.1 Major and Minor Spawning Areas .............................................................................. 33

4.1.2 Abundance and Productivity ....................................................................................... 35

4.1.3 Spatial Structure and Diversity ................................................................................... 36

4.1.4 Overall Risk Rating .................................................................................................... 40

5. Limiting Factors and Threats .................................................................................... 42

5.1 Hatchery Effects .................................................................................................................. 42

5.2. Freshwater Habitat .............................................................................................................. 45

5.2.1 Major Spawning Areas ............................................................................................... 46
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

iv

5.2.2 Minor Spawning Areas ............................................................................................... 53

5.3 Tributary Harvest ................................................................................................................ 55

5.4 Out-of-Subbasin Limiting Factors and Threats ................................................................... 58

5.4.1 Harvest ........................................................................................................................ 59

5.4.2 Columbia River Hydro Operations ............................................................................. 60

5.4.3 Ocean Conditions ........................................................................................................ 61

5.4.4 Climate Change .......................................................................................................... 61

5.4.5 Other Large-Scale Threats .......................................................................................... 62

6. Recovery Strategy and Actions .................................................................................. 63

6.1 Strategies and Actions to Address Data Gaps ...................................................................... 64

6.2 Hatchery-Related Strategies and Actions............................................................................ 67

6.3 Freshwater Habitat Strategies and Actions ......................................................................... 69

6.4 Harvest-Related Strategies and Actions ............................................................................... 78

6.5 Mainstem Columbia Hydrosystem and Estuary -- Strategies and Actions .......................... 79

6.6 Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions ................................................................ 80

7. Implementation and Preliminary Cost Estimates .................................................... 83

7.1 Implementation ................................................................................................................... 83

7.2 Preliminary Cost Estimates ................................................................................................. 84

8. Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management ................................................. 95

8.1 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................................ 95

8.2 Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Program to Support Adaptive Management ....... 98

8.3 Existing Monitoring and Research ...................................................................................... 99

8.3.1 Status and Trends Monitoring ................................................................................... 100

8.3.2 Effectiveness Monitoring .......................................................................................... 101

8.3.3 Critical Uncertainty Research ................................................................................... 101

8.4 Additional Needs .............................................................................................................. 101

8.5 Data Management ............................................................................................................. 109

8.6 Consistency with Other Monitoring Programs ................................................................. 110

8.7 Coordination ..................................................................................................................... 110

8.8 Evaluation Schedule .......................................................................................................... 110

9. References .................................................................................................................. 111

Appendix I. Major Creek ............................................................................................. 120

1 Physical Setting .................................................................................................................... 120

2 Ecosystem Conditions .......................................................................................................... 120

3 Current Status ....................................................................................................................... 122

4 Potential Limiting Factors and Threats ................................................................................ 123

5 Management Actions ........................................................................................................... 123

6 Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 124

Appendix II. Potential Limiting Factors and Threats Identified by Yakama Nation 

Fisheries ......................................................................................................................... 125

Appendix III. Current Efforts and Regulations ......................................................... 147

Appendix IV. Estimates of Abundance Provided by Yakama Nation Fisheries ..... 163
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

v

Tables

Table ES-1.....Recovery Strategies and Actions for the Klickitat River Steelhead 

Population ............................................................................................. xxxii 

Table 4-1 .......Klickitat Summer/Winter Steelhead Basin Statistics .................................38 

Table 4-2 .......ICTRT viability assessment results for Klickitat steelhead population 

spatial structure and diversity factors and metrics ....................................39

Table 4-3 .......Spatial Structure and Diversity Scoring Table: Klickitat Steelhead 

Population ..................................................................................................40 

Table 5-1 .......Results of red surveys completed by Yakama Nation Fisheries in the 

Klickitat basin, 2002 – 2007 ......................................................................44 

Table 5-2 .......Fine sediment concentrations in gravels in the Major and Minor Spawning 

Areas in the Klickitat basin ........................................................................47 

Table 5-3 .......Maximum Recorded Temperature .............................................................47 

Table 5-4 .......Summary of water temperature data collected in the tributaries included in 

the Lower Mainstem Major Spawning Area ..............................................51 

Table 5-5 .......Estimated Harvest for Klickitat River Steelhead, 1986-2007 ....................57 

Table 6-1 .......Strategy 1: Protect Stream Corridor Structure and Function .....................74 

Table 6-2 .......Strategy 2: Restore Passage and Connectivity ...........................................74 

Table 6-3 .......Strategy 3: Restore Floodplain Function and Channel Migration .............75 

Table 6-4 .......Strategy 4: Restore Riparian Condition .....................................................76 

Table 6-5 .......Strategy 5: Restore Altered Hydrographs ..................................................76 

Table 6-6 .......Strategy 6: Restore Degraded Water Quality .............................................77 

Table 6-7 .......Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Klickitat River Steelhead 

Associated with Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-ofSubbasin Actions .......................................................................................82 

Table 7-1 .......Klickitat Subbasin Capital Construction Costs ..........................................85 

Table 7-2 .......Habitat Actions and Costs for Klickitat Steelhead ....................................86 

Table 8-1 .......Summary of ongoing and expanded M&E cost estimates .......................109 

Table I-1 ........Needed Actions, Estimated Time to Implement and Cost Assessment of 

Wild Major Creek Steelhead ....................................................................124 

Table II-1 ......Correlations between ICTRT and Yakama Nation Fisheries ..................128 

Table II-2 ......EDT Strategic Priority Summary for Protection and Restoration of 

Klickitat Steelhead ...................................................................................129 

Table II-3 ......Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in Upper 

Mainstem MaSA ......................................................................................130 

Table II-4 ......Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead In White Creek 

MaSA .......................................................................................................132 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

vi

Table II-5 ......Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in Middle 

Mainstem MaSA ......................................................................................134 

Table II-6 ......Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the 

Lower Mainstem MaSA ...........................................................................136

Table II-7 ......Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the Upper Little 

Klickitat MaSA ........................................................................................138 

Table II-8 ......Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the 

West Fork Klickitat MaSA ......................................................................141

Table II-9 ......Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the 

Swale Creek MiSA ..................................................................................143

Table II-10 ....Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the 

Surveyor’s Creek MiSA ...........................................................................143

Table II-11 ....Potential Limiting factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in Lower 

Little Klickitat MiSA ...............................................................................143 

Table II-12 ....Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the 

Trout Creek MiSA ...................................................................................145

Table III-1 .....Trust Forest and Non-Forest Areas by Management Emphasis ..............160 

Table IV-1 .....Estimated Klickitat River Steelhead Returns, Harvest and Escapement .161 

Figures

Figure ES-1 ...Klickitat Subbasin ................................................................................... xvii 

Figure ES-2 ...Independent Populations in the Mid-Columbia River DPS ..................... xix 

Figure ES-3 ...Major Population Groups of Mid-Columbia Steelhead .............................xx 

Figure 1-1 ......Klickitat Subbasin ........................................................................................1 

Figure 1-2 ......Management Units for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS .....................7 

Figure 2-1 ......Independent Populations in the Mid-Columbia River Steelhead ..............10 

Figure 2-2 ......Major Population Groups of Mid-Columbia Steelhead .............................11 

Figure 2-3 ......Klickitat Subbasin Land Ownership, Towns and Stream Locations .........12 

Figure 2-4 ......Mean Monthly Stream Flow for Six USGS-Operated Gauges on the Little 

Klickitat and Mainstem Klickitat rivers ....................................................13 

Figure 2-5 ......Average Ocean Age Composition of Wild Summer Steelhead in the 

Klickitat River ...........................................................................................20 

Figure 2-6 ......Frequency Distribution of Fork Length at Ocean Age of Wild Summer 

Steelhead in the Klickitat River .................................................................20 

Figure 2-7 ......Average Ocean Age Composition Klickitat Winter-run Steelhead ...........21 

Figure 2-8 ......Frequency Distribution of Fork Length at Ocean Age of Wild Winter 

Steelhead in the Klickitat River, 2004-2005 ..............................................21 

Figure 4-1 ......Klickitat River Steelhead Population Boundary and Historical Major and 

Minor Spawning Areas ..............................................................................35 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

vii

Figure 4-2 ......Summer and Winter Steelhead Distribution in the Klickitat Subbasin ......37 

Figure 4-3 ......Percentage of Historical Spawning Habitat by Major/Minor Spawning 

Area ...........................................................................................................38 

Figure 4-4 ......Viable Salmonid Population Parameter Risk Ratings for the Klickitat 

River Steelhead Salmon Population ..........................................................41 

Figure 6-1 ......EDT Relative Importance of Major and Minor Spawning Areas for 

Protection and Restoration Measures for Klickitat Steelhead ..................72 

Figure 8-1 ......NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework ...............................................97 

Figure I-1 ......Map of the Major Creek Subbasin in Southern Washington showing 

Steelhead Distribution ..............................................................................121 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

viii

Recovery Planning Glossary

abundance: In the context of salmon recovery, unless otherwise qualified, abundance 

refers to the number of adult fish returning to spawn.

adaptive management: Adaptive management in salmon recovery planning is a method 

of decision making in the face of uncertainty. A plan for monitoring, evaluation, and 

feedback is incorporated into an overall implementation plan so that the results of actions 

can become feedback on design and implementation of future actions. 

anadromous fish: Species that are hatched in freshwater, migrate to and mature in salt 

water, and return to freshwater to spawn. 

baseline monitoring: In the context of recovery planning, baseline monitoring is done 

before implementation, in order to establish historical and/or current conditions against 

which progress (or lack of progress) can be measured. 

biogeographical region: an area defined in terms of physical and habitat features, 

including topography and ecological variations, where groups of organisms (in this case, 

salmonids) have evolved in common. 

broad-sense recovery goals: Goals defined in the recovery planning process, generally 

by local recovery planning groups, that go beyond the requirements for delisting, to 

address, for example, other legislative mandates or social, economic, and ecological 

values. 

compliance monitoring: Monitoring to determine whether a specific performance 

standard, environmental standard, regulation, or law is met. 

 

delisting criteria: Criteria incorporated into ESA recovery plans that define both 

biological viability (biological criteria) and alleviation of the causes for decline (threats 

criteria based on the five listing factors in ESA section 4[a][1]), and that, when met, 

would result in a determination that a species is no longer threatened or endangered and 

can be proposed for removal from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species. 

These criteria are a NMFS determination and may include both technical and policy 

considerations. 

distinct population segment (DPS): A listable entity under the ESA that meets tests of 

discreteness and significance according to USFWS and NMFS policy. A population is 

considered distinct (and hence a “species” for purposes of conservation under the ESA) if 

it is discrete from and significant to the remainder of its species based on factors such as 

physical, behavioral, or genetic characteristics, it occupies an unusual or unique 

ecological setting, or its loss would represent a significant gap in the species’ range. 

diversity: All the genetic and phenotypic (life history, behavioral, and morphological) 

variation within a population. Variations could include anadromy vs. lifelong residence in 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

ix

freshwater, fecundity, run timing, spawn timing, juvenile behavior, age at smolting, age 

at maturity, egg size, developmental rate, ocean distribution patterns, male and female 

spawning behavior, physiology, molecular genetic characteristics, etc. 

endangered species: A species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

effectiveness monitoring: Monitoring set up to test cause-and-effect hypotheses about 

recovery actions: Did the management actions achieve their direct effect or goal? For 

example, did fencing a riparian area to exclude livestock result in recovery of riparian 

vegetation? 

ESA recovery plan: A plan to recover a species listed as threatened or endangered under 

the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the 

extent practicable, incorporate (1) objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would 

result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) sitespecific management actions that may be necessary to achieve the plan's goals; and (3) 

estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. 

evolutionarily significant unit (ESU): A group of Pacific salmon or steelhead trout that 

is (1) substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific units and (2) represents 

an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

extinct: No longer in existence. No individuals of this species can be found. 

extirpated: Locally extinct. Other populations of this species exist elsewhere. The 

ICTRT considers extirpated steelhead populations to be those that are entirely cut off 

from anadromy, such as the Crooked River population. Functionally extirpated 

populations are those of which there are so few remaining numbers that there are not 

enough fish or habitat in suitable condition to support a fully functional population. 

factors for decline: Five general categories of causes for decline of a species, listed in 

the Endangered Species Act section 4(a)(1)(b): (A) the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

functionally extirpated: Describes a species that has been extirpated from an area; 

although a few individuals may occasionally be found, there are not enough fish or 

habitat in suitable condition to support a fully functional population. 

hyporheic zone: Area of saturated gravel and other sediment beneath and beside streams 

and rivers where groundwater and surface water mix. 

implementation monitoring: Monitoring to determine whether an activity was 

performed and/or completed as planned. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

x

independent population: Any collection of one or more local breeding units whose 

population dynamics or extinction risk over a 100-year time period is not substantially 

altered by exchanges of individuals with other populations. 

indicator: A variable used to forecast the value or change in the value of another 

variable. 

interim regional recovery plan: A recovery plan that is intended to lead to an ESA 

recovery plan but that is not yet complete. These plans might address only a portion of 

an ESU or lack other key components of an ESA recovery plan. 

intrinsic potential: The estimated relative suitability of a habitat for spawning and 

rearing of anadromous salmonid species under historical conditions inferred from stream 

characteristics including channel size, gradient, and valley width.

intrinsic productivity: The expected ratio of natural-origin offspring to parent spawners 

at levels of abundance below carrying capacity. 

iteroparous: Capable of reproducing more than once in a lifetime.

kelts: Steelhead that are returning to the ocean after spawning and have the potential to 

spawn again in subsequent years (unlike most salmon, steelhead do not necessarily die 

shortly after spawning). 

large woody debris (LWD): A general term for wood naturally occurring or artificially 

placed in streams, including branches, stumps, logs, and logjams. Streams with adequate 

LWD tend to have greater habitat diversity, a natural meandering shape, and greater 

resistance to flooding. 

legacy effects: Impacts from past activities that continue to affect a stream or watershed 

in the present day. 

limiting factor: Physical, biological, or chemical features (e.g., inadequate spawning 

habitat, high water temperature, insufficient prey resources) experienced by the fish that 

result in reductions in viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters (abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). Key limiting factors are those with the 

greatest impacts on a population’s ability to reach a desired status. 

locally developed recovery plan: A plan developed by state, tribal, regional, or local 

planning entities to address recovery of a species. These plans are being developed by a 

number of entities throughout the region to address ESA as well as state, tribal, and local 

mandates and recovery needs. 

maintained status: Population status in which the population does not meet the criteria 

for a viable population but does support ecological functions and preserve options for 

ESU/DPS recovery. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xi

major population group (MPG): A group of salmonid populations that are 

geographically and genetically cohesive. The MPG is a level of organization between 

demographically independent populations and the ESU or DPS. 

major spawning area (MaSA): A system of one or more branches that contain 

sufficient spawning and rearing habitat to support more than 500 spawners. For Interior 

Columbia salmonid populations: defined using results from intrinsic potential analysis. 

management unit: A geographic area defined for recovery planning purposes on the 

basis of state, tribal or local jurisdictional boundaries that encompass all or a portion of 

the range of a listed species, ESU, or DPS. 

metrics: A metric is something that quantifies a characteristic of a situation or process; 

for example, the number of natural-origin salmon returning to spawn to a specific 

location is a metric for population abundance. 

minor spawning area (MiSA): A system of one or more branches that contain sufficient 

spawning and rearing habitat to support 50-500 spawners. For Interior Columbia 

salmonid populations: defined using results from intrinsic potential analysis. 

morphology: The form and structure of an organism, with special emphasis on external 

features. 

natural-origin fish: Fish that were spawned and reared in the wild, regardless of parental 

origin. 

parr: The stage in anadromous salmonid development between absorption of the yolk 

sac and transformation to smolt before migration seaward. 

phenotype: Any observable characteristic of an organism, such as its external 

appearance, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior. 

piscivorous: (Adj.) Describes fish that eat other fish. 

productivity: The average number of surviving offspring per parent. Productivity is used 

as an indicator of a population’s ability to sustain itself or its ability to rebound from low 

numbers. The terms “population growth rate” and “population productivity” are 

interchangeable when referring to measures of population production over an entire life 

cycle. Can be expressed as the number of recruits (adults) per spawner or the number of 

smolts per spawner. 

recovery domain: An administrative unit for recovery planning defined by NMFS based 

on ESU boundaries, ecosystem boundaries, and existing local planning processes. 

Recovery domains may contain one or more listed ESUs. 

recovery goals: Goals incorporated into a locally developed recovery plan, which may 

include delisting (i.e. no longer considered endangered or threatened), reclassification 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xii

(e.g., from endangered to threatened), and/or other goals. Broad-sense goals are a subset 

of recovery goals (see glossary entry above). 

recovery plan supplement: A NMFS supplement to a locally developed recovery plan 

that describes how the plan addresses ESA requirements for recovery plans. The 

supplement also proposes ESA delisting criteria for the ESUs addressed by the plan, 

since a determination of these criteria is a NMFS decision. 

recovery scenarios: Scenarios that describe a target status for each population within an 

ESU, generally consistent with TRT recommendations for ESU viability. 

redd: A nest constructed by female salmonids in streambed gravels where eggs are 

fertilized and deposited. 

recovery strategy: Statements that identify the assumptions and logic – the rationale – 

for the species’ recovery program. 

riparian area: Area with distinctive soils and vegetation between a stream or other body 

of water and the adjacent upland. 

salmonid: Fish of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, chars, grayling, and 

whitefish. In general usage, the term usually refers to salmon, trout, and chars. 

smolt: A juvenile salmonid that is undergoing physiological and behavioral changes to 

adapt from freshwater to saltwater as it migrates toward the ocean. 

spatial structure: Characteristics of a fish population’s geographic distribution. Current 

spatial structure depends upon the presence of fish, not merely the potential for fish to 

occupy an area. 

stakeholders: Agencies, groups, or private citizens with an interest in recovery 

planning, or who will be affected by recovery planning and actions. 

Technical Recovery Team (TRT): Teams convened by NMFS to develop technical 

products related to recovery planning. TRTs are complemented by planning forums 

unique to specific states, tribes, or regions, which use TRT and other technical products 

to identify recovery actions. 

threatened species: A species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

threats: Human activities or natural events (e.g., road building, floodplain development, 

fish harvest, hatchery influences, volcanoes) that cause or contribute to limiting factors. 

Threats may exist in the present or be likely to occur in the future. 

viability criteria: Criteria defined by NMFS-appointed Technical Recovery Teams to 

describe a viable salmonid population, based on the biological parameters of abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. These criteria are used as technical input 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xiii

into the recovery planning process and provide a technical foundation for development of 

biological delisting criteria. 

viability curve: A curve describing combinations of abundance and productivity that 

yield a particular risk of extinction at a given level of variation over a specified time 

frame. 

viable salmonid population (VSP): an independent population of Pacific salmon or 

steelhead trout that has a negligible risk of extinction over a 100-year time frame. 

VSP parameters: Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. These 

describe characteristics of salmonid populations that are useful in evaluating population 

viability. See NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42, Viable salmonid 

populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units (McElhany et al. 2000). 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xiv

Acronyms

A/P abundance/productivity

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

CAO Critical Areas Ordinance 

CCRP Continuous Conservation Reserve Program

CEO County Environmental Ordinance 

CFEF Castile Falls Enumeration Facility 

CFS cubic feet/second 

CKCD Central Klickitat Conservation District

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

CRITFC Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

CRFMP Columbia River Fisheries Management Plan 

CSMEP Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project

CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

CUP Conditional Use Permits

CZO County Zoning Ordinance 

DO dissolved oxygen

DOC Department of Commerce 

DPS distinct population segment 

EA Environmental Assessment

Ecology Department of Ecology 

EDF energy dissipation factor

EDT Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EKCD Eastern Klickitat Conservation District 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESHB Engrossed Substitute House Bill 

ESU evolutionarily significant unit 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System 

FEIS final environmental impact statement 

FMEP Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan 

FMP Forest Management Plan 

FPO Floodplain Management Ordinance 

FSA Farm Service Agency

FY fiscal year 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

GPS Global Positioning System

HGMP Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans 

HOF hatchery-origin fish 

HSRG Hatchery Scientific Review Group 

HUC hydrologic unit code

ICTRT Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team 

ISG Independent Scientific Group 

KMP Klickitat Anadromous Fishery Master Plan 

KWEP Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project

KPUD Klickitat Public Utility District

LCFRB Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xv

LUMA Land Use Management Area

MaSA major spawning area 

MCR Middle Columbia River 

MEA Management Emphasis Area 

MiSA minor spawning area

MPG major population group 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFH National Fish Hatchery

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOF natural-origin fish 

NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NSA National Scenic Area 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OFM Office of Financial Management

PCSRF Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition 

PIT Passive Integrated Transponders

PNAMP Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership 

RCW Revised Code of Washington 

RM river mile 

RM&E research, monitoring and evaluation 

SDP Substantial Development Permits

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

SMP Shorelines Master Plan

SR State Route

SRFB Salmon Recovery Funding Board 

SSB Substitute Senate Bill 

TFW Timber, Fish, and Wildlife 

TMDL total maximum daily loads

TRT Technical Recovery Team 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USBOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VSP viable salmonid population

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

WPN Washington Permit Notification 

WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area 

WSDA Washington State Department of Agriculture 

WDOE Washington State Department of Ecology 

WDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 

WRPAC Water Resources Planning Advisory Committee 

YKFP Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

YN Yakama Nation
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xvi

Executive Summary

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) to develop recovery plans for species listed under the Act. The purpose 

of recovery plans is to identify actions needed to restore threatened and endangered 

species to the point that they are again self-sustaining elements of their ecosystems and 

no longer need the protections of the ESA. 

This plan focuses on the conservation and survival of Middle Columbia River steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Klickitat River subbasin (Figure ES-1).1

 It is one of 

several recovery plans developed for independent populations of the Middle Columbia 

River steelhead distinct population segment (DPS), which was listed as threatened under 

the ESA on March 25, 1999 and reconfirmed on January 5, 2006 (NMFS 2006a, 71 FR 

834). Similar plans have been prepared for Middle Columbia steelhead populations in 

the White Salmon River, Rock Creek, and Yakima River, as well as in areas of southeast 

Washington and the State of Oregon. These separate plans are part of a DPS-level plan 

that integrates recovery actions across the DPS. 

The Klickitat River population is of particular interest because it contains both summer 

and winter runs, and it potentially could make a significant contribution to recovery of 

the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS. The Klickitat River is one of the largest salmon 

producing watersheds in the Columbia basin. Recent passage improvements at Castile 

Falls in the upper Klickitat have opened an additional 56 miles of high quality steelhead 

habitat. Passage improvements in the lower Klickitat (Lyle Falls at RM 2.2) are also 

expected to benefit immigrating adults. In addition, a hatchery master plan under 

development by the Yakama Nation in consultation with NMFS is expected to improve 

hatchery management to support conservation of the naturally spawning steelhead (Sharp 

et al. 2008). Moving existing U.S. v. Oregon production of fall Chinook and coho from 

the Klickitat hatchery to the new Wahkiacus Acclimation Facility 26 miles downstream 

will minimize the impacts of large-scale hatchery releases on wild spring Chinook and 

steelhead rearing between the two facilities. 

Purpose of Plan 

The plan provides a roadmap for restoring the Klickitat steelhead population and its 

habitats to a level that supports recovery of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS 

and allows the population to become a viable component of its ecosystem. A recovery 

plan is a guidance document, not regulatory. 

The plan describes the current status of the Klickitat population, identifies the factors and 

threats affecting the population, and proposes strategies and actions designed to aid in the 

population’s recovery and build on past and current recovery efforts. Finally, the plan 

 

1

 A description of the Major Creek watershed is included as Appendix I of this plan. Major Creek flows 

into the Columbia River immediately downstream of the Klickitat River and is believed to contain Middle 

Columbia steelhead. The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team has not evaluated the data for Major 

Creek, but because of its proximity to the Klickitat River, its steelhead may have genetic characteristics 

similar to the Klickitat steelhead population. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xvii

provides an implementation schedule and adaptive management framework for making 

needed future adjustments on the road to recovery. 

Context of Plan Development 

The plan is the product of a process initiated by NMFS; it incorporates information from 

the Yakama Nation (YN), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 

Klickitat County, the Washington State Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, other 

Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, and the public. 

Figure ES-1. Klickitat Subbasin. 

The Klickitat Plan reflects direction for Klickitat steelhead adopted into the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council’s (NPCC) Fish and Wildlife Program subbasin plan 

(NPCC 2004). The subbasin plan was produced through a collaborative process 

involving the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and NPCC. 

In addition, the plan reflects technical data drawn from: 

• Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 30 watershed assessment (WPN and 

Aspect 2005a) and watershed management plan (WPN and Aspect 2005b) 

• The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) viability criteria for 

the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS (ICTRT 2007) 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xviii

Biological Background 

The Klickitat River drains approximately 1,350 square miles in south central Washington 

before joining the Columbia River at Lyle, Washington (RM 180.4), 34 miles upstream 

of Bonneville Dam. The Klickitat is one of the longest undammed rivers in the 

Northwest. 

Reasons for listing the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS as threatened under the 

ESA included low returns to the Yakima River, poor abundance estimates for Klickitat 

River and Fifteenmile Creek steelhead, uncertainty regarding the influence of hatchery 

releases on the natural steelhead population, and an overall decline of naturally producing 

“stocks” within the DPS (64 FR 14517). The Klickitat River population is of particular 

interest because of containing both summer and winter runs. 

The ICTRT identified 17 extant and 3 extirpated independent steelhead populations in the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS (McClure et al. 2003). These populations are 

shown in Figure ES-2. The ICTRT delineated the populations based on genetic 

information, geography, life history traits, morphological traits, and population dynamics. 

The ICTRT grouped these independent populations into four major population groups 

(MPGs) within the DPS: the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, Yakima subbasin 

MPG, John Day River MPG, and Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. The Klickitat River 

population is one of the five extant populations (Klickitat River, Fifteenmile Creek, Rock 

Creek, Deschutes Eastside, and Deschutes Westside) and two extirpated populations 

(White Salmon River and Deschutes Crooked River) comprising the Cascades Eastern 

Slope Tributaries MPG (Figure ES-3). Populations in the group are united primarily by 

proximity and occupy diverse habitats, generally those draining the eastern slopes of the 

Cascades and the Columbia Plateau. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xix

Figure ES-2. Independent Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xx

Figure ES-3. Major Population Groups and Populations of Middle Columbia Steelhead. 

Historically, the presence of several natural migration barriers in the Klickitat watershed 

may have limited anadromous fish production, particularly during low water years. The 

Klickitat River flows through a deep, steep-walled canyon with several historically 

impassable or marginally passable falls and cascades where the river flows over resistant 

bedrock. In addition, access to many of the tributaries is restricted because of impassably 

high gradients or waterfalls close to the tributary mouths. Such historical barriers were 

important in maintaining separate life history strategies of O. mykiss, including summer 

steelhead, winter steelhead, and resident rainbow trout. 

Approximately 102,000 summer-run steelhead from Skamania and Vancouver hatcheries 

are currently released directly into the Klickitat River annually. Release sites are Leidl 

Bridge (RM 32), the mouth of the Little Klickitat River (RM 20.2), Wahkiacus Bridge 

(RM 17), and Pitt Bridge (RM 10.4). The Skamania Hatchery broodstock is maintained 

by using adult steelhead returning to the Skamania Hatchery on the North Fork of the 

Washougal River. The original broodstock for the program was established with wild 

fish taken from both the Washougal and Klickitat River systems. In addition to the 

hatchery releases of steelhead, an average of 4,349,710 fall Chinook, 595,318 spring 

Chinook, and 3,714,083 coho are released from the hatcheries into the Klickitat River 

each year (Sharp et al. 2008). Coho and fall Chinook are not native to the basin upstream 

of Lyle Falls. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxi

Recovery Goals and Criteria 

The primary goal of ESA recovery plans is for the species to reach the point that it no 

longer needs the protection of the Act – i.e. to be delisted. Recovery plans may also 

contain “broad-sense” goals, defined in the recovery planning process, that go beyond the 

requirements for delisting to address, for example, other legislative mandates or social, 

economic, and ecological values. 

Delisting criteria are applied at the DPS level, and are based on determinations of the 

viability of the independent populations that make up the DPS. Criteria for delisting the 

Middle Columbia steelhead DPS are described in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

ESA Recovery Plan, to which this plan is an appendix. This chapter provides recovery 

goals for the Klickitat steelhead population, describes the criteria to be used to assess 

progress toward those goals, and describes the role of the Klickitat steelhead population 

in overall DPS viability. 

There are two kinds of criteria that enter into a delisting decision: population or 

demographic parameters (the biological viability criteria) and “threats” criteria related to 

the five listing factors detailed in the ESA (see Section 1.1). The threats criteria define 

the conditions under which the listing factors, or threats, can be considered to be 

addressed or mitigated. Together these make up the “objective, measurable criteria” 

required under section 4(f)(1)(B). Both kinds of criteria are discussed in this chapter. 

The primary goal of this plan is for the Klickitat steelhead population to be restored to 

viable status and thus to support recovery of the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. A viable 

salmonid population is defined as an independent population that has negligible risk of 

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

If a local, collaborative Washington Gorge Recovery Board is formed, it may choose to 

define additional, broad-sense goals for the Klickitat steelhead population and other 

steelhead populations within the Washington Gorge Management Unit. The board’s 

broad-sense goals for the area would likely build upon direction already adopted by 

various stakeholders in the area. These goals would then guide the board as it defines 

and implements future recovery actions for the Klickitat subbasin. 

In the meantime, the Yakama Nation has proposed, as a broad-sense goal for the Klickitat 

steelhead population, the achievement of “highly viable” status, which corresponds to a 

one percent risk of extinction over a 100-year period. Achieving highly viable status for 

the population would provide for long-term, sustainable harvest and other social, cultural, 

and ceremonial needs, although it would likely exceed the minimum necessary to support 

delisting the DPS. 

The ICTRT developed biologically based viability criteria for ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead in the Interior Columbia domain. The ICTRT based its approach to recovery 

on guidance from the NMFS Technical Memorandum, Viable Salmonid Populations and 

the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). This 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxii

memorandum provides general direction for setting viability objectives at the ESU/DPS 

and component population levels. 

The ICTRT criterion for a viable ESU/DPS is that all extant MPGs and any extirpated 

MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU/DPS should be at low risk. The ICTRT 

provided additional criteria for determining MPG viability (Section 3.2.1). Applying the 

ICTRT’s viability criteria to the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG results in the 

conclusion that the Klickitat steelhead population should reach viable status in order to 

support overall DPS viability, because of its historical abundance and the presence of 

both summer and winter runs. 

The ICTRT classified the Klickitat steelhead population as an “Intermediate” sized 

population, based on historical habitat potential (ICTRT 2007) and provided viability 

criteria for an Intermediate population, as follows (ICTRT 2007): 

Abundance 

For an Intermediate population, viable status, i.e. a 5 percent or less risk of extinction 

over a 100-year timeframe, would require a mean minimum abundance threshold of 

1,000 naturally produced spawners. 

Productivity 

Productivity rates at relatively low numbers of spawners should, on average, be 

sufficiently greater than 1.0 to allow the population to rapidly return to abundance target 

levels. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

In general, the ICTRT defined two goals, or biological or ecological objectives, that 

spatial structure and diversity criteria should achieve (ICTRT 2007, p. 47): 

• Natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes should be maintained. 

• Natural patterns of variation should be maintained. 

Threats Criteria and Approach 

Section 3.2.2 of the Plan describes the listing factors and listing factor/threats criteria that 

must be addressed to delist the DPS. The listing factors are the features that were 

evaluated under ESA section 4(a)(1) when the initial determination was made to list the 

species for protection. 

 

At the time of a delisting decision, NMFS will use the listing factors/threats criteria to 

review the status of the section 4(a)(1) listing factors and determine whether the affected 

DPS is recovered to the point that it no longer requires protections of the ESA. NMFS 

expects that if the proposed actions described in this and other Middle Columbia River 

steelhead recovery plans are implemented, the fish will make substantial progress toward 

meeting the listing factor/threats criteria. These criteria are identified in Section 3.3 and 

address the five listing factors that were evaluated under section 4(a)(1): 1) the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range; 2) 

over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes; 3) 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxiii

disease or predation; 4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 5) other 

natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence. 

Current Status Assessment 

There are currently neither solid historical data nor accurate metrics for assessing current 

status of the Klickitat steelhead population. Yakama Nation biologists have provided 

substantial data, summarized in Chapter 4, which is, however, of a relatively short 

generational span and limited by significant uncertainties. The first priority for recovery 

for this population is to reduce these uncertainties with a targeted monitoring program 

(see Chapter 6, Recovery Strategy and Actions). 

The ICTRT reviewed existing data, previous assessment findings, and GIS analysis for its 

2005 viability assessment of this population, which is available on the Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center website, http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/trt columbia.cfm. 

In this recovery plan the ICTRT viability assessment is presented first, followed by 

currently available status information from the Yakama Nation. Discussion is also 

provided of findings from the ICTRT, Yakama Nation, and Klickitat County regarding 

identification of major and minor spawning areas. 

The ICTRT found that the data for steelhead spawning in the Klickitat drainage were 

insufficient to estimate current abundance. It also found that the productivity of Klickitat 

steelhead is currently uncertain because both naturally produced and hatchery-origin 

steelhead return to the Klickitat River. Returns to the Klickitat River include hatcheryorigin adults from annual outplants of Skamania summer steelhead stock (approximately 

100,000 smolts per year) into the middle sections of the mainstem Klickitat. The 

spawning success of these hatchery fish is unknown. While redd surveys of steelhead 

spawning in the Klickitat drainage have been conducted in recent years, there is 

insufficient coverage to estimate the annual contribution of hatchery vs. natural steelhead 

in the natural production areas. 

Because of insufficient data and the uncertainties regarding naturally occurring 

production, the ICTRT provisionally assigned the Klickitat River population Moderate 

risk for abundance and productivity (ICTRT 2007). 

The ICTRT rated the Klickitat River steelhead population at Moderate risk for spatial 

structure and diversity because of the potential impact on wild steelhead from outsidestock hatchery fish. It determined that reducing the spatial structure/diversity risk to a 

low rating would require reducing the impacts of the outside-stock hatchery program on 

natural spawning areas, or determining that the natural population is actually 

experiencing very little impact from the Skamania stock origin returns. 

Limiting Factors and Threats 

1. Hatchery influences 

Currently there is insufficient information to determine the effects of hatchery releases on 

the natural steelhead population. While it is likely that hatchery hybridization of 

Skamania stock with wild steelhead has occurred in the Klickitat subbasin (NPCC 2004), 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxiv

the level of impact on the natural population remains uncertain. However, based on 

hatchery release levels and sport catch estimates, the ICTRT found that it is very likely 

that the hatchery contribution rate to natural steelhead spawning in the Klickitat subbasin 

has exceeded 5 percent for more than four generations (ICTRT 2007). Straying of out-ofsubbasin hatchery-produced steelhead, primarily from the Snake River and Upper 

Columbia, into the Klickitat subbasin may also affect the viability of the Klickitat 

steelhead population. 

Coho and fall Chinook are not native, but have naturalized in the basin as a result of 

hatchery releases and are known to spawn in relatively large numbers (Evenson and 

Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt 

and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009). The effects of these hatchery 

releases and/or the subsequently naturalized species on the Klickitat River steelhead 

population are unknown. 

2. Habitat 

Habitat factors that likely limit steelhead production in the Klickitat watershed are 

affected by past and/or current land use practices that stress naturally occurring 

conditions. For example, while low summer flows and high summer water temperatures 

occur naturally in some parts of the watershed because of bedrock terrain and steep 

slopes, anthropogenic changes in the subbasin may have increased the intensity of such 

factors. The habitat factors that potentially limit steelhead abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity within the Klickitat watershed are the following: lack of 

key habitat quantity and habitat diversity, loss of floodplain function, altered hydrology, 

degraded channel structure, obstructed fish passage, increased fine sediment delivery, 

high water temperature, and altered food web. Chapter 5 and Appendix II provide more 

detail on these factors, as well as their potential effects on steelhead viability. 

3. Harvest 

Tributary recreational steelhead fisheries in the Klickitat River are selective for marked 

hatchery steelhead; the release of unmarked wild steelhead is required. In the Klickitat 

River, the recreational fisheries impact on wild summer-run steelhead is estimated to be 6 

percent and for winter-run steelhead 3 percent (WDFW 2003). Treaty Native American 

fisheries also occur in the mainstem Klickitat River. The treaty Native American catch of 

all types of steelhead (summer and winter, wild and hatchery combined) in the Klickitat 

River is estimated at an average of 1,146 steelhead per year since 1986 (Sharp et al. 

2008). Estimated tribal harvest of wild steelhead in the Klickitat averages 178 fish per 

year (Table 2-1) (Sharp et al. 2008). 

4. Out-of-Subbasin Factors 

Out-of-subbasin limiting factors and threats are discussed briefly in Section 5.4. The 

2008 Biological Opinion on the operation of the FCRPS, and particularly the 

Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis (NMFS 2008a). 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/Final-BOs.cfm, 

details the influences from the Columbia River hydrosystem. The Columbia River 

Estuary Module http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery -
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxv

Plans/upload/Estuary-Module.pdf discusses factors that may limit the viability of 

Klickitat steelhead in the Columbia River estuary. 

Recovery Strategy and Actions 

The rationale linking what is known about the population’s current conditions and the 

actions that should be taken to achieve recovery is called the recovery strategy. 

Lack of information about the Klickitat River steelhead population is a major problem for 

recovery planning for the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS. Using the ICTRT 

criteria for DPS viability, this population (among others) needs to be viable for the DPS 

to be viable. The Klickitat population’s moderate risk rating was assigned primarily on 

the basis of uncertainty and lack of data, particularly with respect to the influence of 

hatchery fish on the wild steelhead population. Therefore, the first importance for a 

recovery strategy is to reduce the uncertainties by obtaining more information. 

A targeted monitoring program is needed for the following purposes: 

• To determine abundance and productivity of natural spawners 

• To determine the proportion of hatchery and wild spawners in the Klickitat 

subbasin. 

• To determine the adverse effects of Skamania broodstock on the Klickitat 

population, if any. 

• Continue study and further refine understanding of habitat limiting factors. 

The Yakama Nation is working with NMFS, WDFW, tribal fish and wildlife leaders, and 

others to develop a master plan for an integrated hatchery program for the Lower 

Klickitat River. The program will minimize adverse impacts on the natural steelhead 

spawning population. One option being explored by hatchery program managers is to 

replace the current program, which releases out-of-basin Skamania hatchery-origin 

smolts in the Klickitat River system, with a hatchery program that relies entirely on the 

use of natural-origin summer steelhead from the Klickitat River for broodstock. The new 

program would continue to provide harvest opportunities for treaty and non-treaty 

fisheries. A feasibility study would likely be conducted as part of the program to 

investigate broodstock collection and juvenile rearing strategies, expected smolt-to-adult 

survival rates, and the risks associated with current steelhead hatchery practices.

The Yakama Nation also is working with NMFS, WDFW, tribal leaders, and others to 

examine whether a conservation hatchery program could be used to accelerate 

recolonization of the Upper Klickitat watershed. The program could also be used to 

provide harvest opportunities. The need for, and use of, artificial production to accelerate 

recolonization would be contingent upon the rate and extent that natural recolonization 

occurs in the upper watershed now that passage has been restored at Castile Falls. The 

decision to implement an artificial propagation program in the upper Klickitat watershed 

would likely imply that natural recolonization has been minimal and/or is occurring at an 

extremely slow rate. The draft Klickitat River Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan, which 

describes in detail these hatchery actions, was submitted for review to fulfill the 

requirements for step one of the NPPC’s three-step process for major projects (WDFW 

and Sharp et al. 2008). 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxvi

Habitat conditions (e.g. high water temperatures in some tributaries) and the various 

natural and constructed migration barriers are considered to be limiting factors for the 

Klickitat steelhead population. Protecting the existing good quality habitat, restoring 

habitat where appropriate, and improving access to spawning areas would likely improve 

abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity for this population. Further 

identification of the factors limiting the Klickitat population is a priority action. 

Managing harvest to maintain current low impacts from both mainstem and tributary 

fisheries, and to reduce any adverse impacts that may be occurring, also is an important 

contribution to the population’s viability. 

The actions recommended to support recovery are described in more detail in the 

following sections. Table ES-1 organizes priority actions in terms of larger categories, 

called strategies. Out-of-basin recovery strategies and actions are addressed in two 

NMFS documents, The Columbia River Estuary Module, available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery-Plans/OtherDocuments.cfm, and the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008c). 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxvii

Table ES-1. Recovery Strategies and Actions for the Klickitat River Steelhead Population.

Strategy Key Types of Actions 

Hatchery 

Determine impact of hatchery steelhead 

releases on viability of Klickitat 

steelhead population. 

• Conduct annual spawner surveys to track adult steelhead occupancy of MaSAs. 

• Sample carcasses on spawning grounds to estimate natural/hatchery adult spawner 

ratios. 

• Increase juvenile and adult genetic sampling and analysis at spawning grounds and at 

various trap locations to assess level of domestication and interbreeding between 

hatchery and natural steelhead. 

• Conduct radio-tagging study to determine spatial and temporal distribution of natural 

population and Skamania Hatchery steelhead, and overlap between summer and 

winter runs. 

Minimize adverse impacts of hatchery 

releases on natural steelhead spawning 

population. 

• Develop and implement Klickitat steelhead integrated hatchery program. 

• Conduct feasibility study to gain needed information on broodstock collection, rearing 

strategies and expected smolt-to-adult survival rates, and to assess risks associated 

with current and proposed hatchery practices. 

Improve steelhead passage at Lyle Falls 

Fishway. 

• Reconstruct Lyle Falls Fishway to Federal design criteria to ease passage of steelhead 

and to possibly function as the broodstock collection facility. 

Assess steelhead natural recolonization 

of upper Klickitat watershed and the 

potential use of artificial propagation to 

accelerate recolonization. 

• Monitor annual natural escapement of steelhead into the upper subbasin. 

• Use Castile Fishway trap to collect biological data on O. mykiss migrating into the 

upper watershed, and to monitor trends in the genetic composition and diversity of the 

upper basin population. 

• Explore need for a conservation hatchery program to accelerate recolonization of 

upper Klickitat watershed. 

Minimize adverse impacts of largescale hatchery releases of U.S. v. 

Oregon production stocks (coho and 

fall Chinook) on Klickitat steelhead. 

• Develop the satellite Wahkiacus Hatchery/Acclimation Facility at RM 17.0. 

• Transfer existing U.S. v. Oregon production of fall Chinook and coho from Klickitat 

Hatchery to new Wahkiacus facility. 

Determine and minimize impacts of 

hatchery trout releases in the subbasin. 

• Investigate impacts of WDFW hatchery trout plants into the Klickitat subbasin. 

Determine the effects of hatchery 

releases of coho and fall Chinook and 

subsequent naturalization of the species 

on Klickitat River steelhead 

• Conduct annual spawner surveys to document adult coho and fall Chinook occupancy. 

• Sample carcasses on spawning grounds to estimate natural/hatchery adult spawner 

ratios. 

• Develop population estimates of naturally spawning coho and fall Chinook and 

evaluate productivity of those species. 

• Conduct studies as needed to determine the effect of coho and fall Chinook on 

steelhead population. 

Tributary Habitat 

Protect stream corridor structure and 

function 

• Protect highest quality habitats through land acquisition, conservation easements or 

land trusts with willing landowners. 

• Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements where beneficial. 

• Conserve rare and unique functioning habitats. 

• Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and 

conserve natural ecological processes. 

Restore passage and connectivity 

between habitat areas. 

• Monitor effectiveness of passage improvements at Castile Falls. 

• Remove or replace barriers blocking or impairing passage including dikes, road 

culverts and irrigation structures. 

• Monitor and continue restoration efforts in Snyder Creek mill reach. 

• Ensure that pump intakes are adequately screened. 

Restore riparian condition • Restore natural riparian vegetative communities. 

• Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery. 

• Monitor and continue restoration efforts in Snyder Creek mill reach. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxviii

Strategy Key Types of Actions 

Restore altered hydrographs to enhance 

instream flows during critical periods 

• Implement agricultural water conservation measures. 

• Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. 

• Employ BMPs to forest, agriculture and grazing practices and to road management. 

• Assess effects of groundwater development on tributary flow. 

• Protect and/or rehabilitate springs 

• Increase pool habitat. 

Restore water quality, including water 

temperatures. 

• Increase riparian shading where stream temperatures are high 

• Assess nutrient and dissolved oxygen levels in the Little Klickitat River, particularly 

downstream of Goldendale. 

• Employ BMPs for forest, agriculture and grazing practices and for road management. 

• Upgrade or remove problem forest roads. 

Harvest 

Manage to maintain current low impact 

fisheries and reduce harvest-related 

adverse effects in those fisheries that 

have significant impacts. 

Maintain current management regulations for low impact fisheries and adjust tributary 

harvest regulations in areas where harvest significantly impacts steelhead viability. 

Study and limit adverse impacts of 

harvest practices in Klickitat subbasin 

on ESA-listed species. 

Eliminate illegal harvest by enforcing tribal and sport regulations in Klickitat subbasin. 

Monitoring 

Monitor to determine abundance and 

productivity of natural spawners, 

proportion of hatchery and wild 

spawners in the Klickitat subbasin, and 

adverse effects, if any, of Skamania 

broodstock on Klickitat steelhead 

population. 

• Continue to enumerate upstream adult migrants and downstream migrating smolts at 

the fish traps 

• Develop estimates of the efficiencies of the traps 

• Annually estimate the abundance of the adult and smolt populations 

• Develop annual estimates of productivity of natural spawners 

Develop improved methods for estimating abundance and productivity of natural 

spawners. 

Cost Estimates 

The highest priority strategies for the Klickitat basin address data gaps (see Section 6-1). 

As such, these priority strategies fall into the category of research, monitoring, and 

evaluation. The costs associated with these efforts are detailed in Chapter 8. Table 8-1 

estimates the cost of ongoing and expanded RM&E activities to be up to $4,484,402 for 

years 1 through 3, and up to $15,142,783 for years 4 through 10. Information gained 

through filling the priority data gaps will help to refine the actions needed to reach 

recovery. 

Costs for actions to address hatchery-related effects are distributed among research, 

monitoring and evaluation, detailed in Chapter 8, and capital costs and operations and 

maintenance costs that have been included in programs proposed under the NPCC Fish 

and Wildlife Program or are ongoing under that program or the Mitchell Act 

administered by NMFS. Capital costs for hatchery and fish passage improvements are 

estimated at $41.6 million; these are proposed as part of the Klickitat River Anadromous 

Fisheries Master Plan, submitted to the NPCC in 2008 (Sharp et al. 2008). Ongoing 

operations and maintenance costs are not included in the total cost of recovery calculated 

for the plan, per NOAA guidance for cost estimating (Plummer 2006). 

The total estimated cost for completing all of the habitat projects identified in Chapter 6 

is estimated to be up to $129,451,630 ($25,890,326.00 for years 1-10, and 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxix

$103,561,304.00 for years 11-50). Estimates are expressed in 2007 dollars. Estimated 

costs are general range summaries arranged to align with the Klickitat River Anadromous 

Fisheries Master Plan (Sharp et al. 2008) and Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project. 

Implementation 

NMFS has worked independently with the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, and local entities to develop the recovery plan for the Klickitat 

steelhead population. NMFS encourages the formation of a planning forum for the 

Washington Gorge Management Unit, a forum or entity that would take responsibility for 

coordinating implementation of the plan. The creation of a Washington Gorge Area 

Regional Board (subject to concurrence by state, tribal and local governments, including 

the Yakama Nation) would provide a collaborative process for further prioritizing 

recovery actions and for implementation of the Washington Gorge Management Unit 

plans. 

Implementation of the Klickitat Subbasin Recovery plan involves addressing data gaps 

through research, monitoring, and evaluation; establishing schedules and priorities for 

recovery actions; engaging stakeholders and landowners; identifying responsibilities; and 

securing funding. Implementation of this plan depends on the voluntary actions and 

cooperation of local entities and citizen groups. An important part of implementation will 

be working cooperatively to develop a detailed research, monitoring, and evaluation plan 

addressing the additional information needs described in Chapter 8. 

Funding sources for salmon and steelhead recovery actions in the Columbia Basin are 

varied. They include: 

• Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) (States and tribes) 

• Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) (a combination of PCSRF and 

Washington State funds) 

• Columbia Basin Fish Accords 

• Congressional appropriations (Federal agencies) 

• State appropriations (state agencies) 

• Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program (states 

and tribes) 

• Federal / state grants 

• Non-profit organization programs and grants 

The 2008 Columbia River Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement between the Three 

Treaty Tribes and FCRPS Action Agencies identifies funds for hatchery planning and 

operations and maintenance covering some of the existing and expanded activities in the 

Klickitat River basin. The Accords identify hatchery capital funds for the design and 

construction of the hatchery and passage facilities in the Klickitat River basin except the 

Wahkiacus Hatchery facility, and include language that states that the Action Agencies 

will work toward finding funding for this facility. 
Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

xxx

Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management 

As part of implementing the Klickitat recovery plan, a detailed monitoring and evaluation 

program will be designed and incorporated into an adaptive management framework 

based on the principles and concepts laid out in the NMFS guidance document, Adaptive 

Management for Salmon Recovery: Evaluation Framework and Monitoring Guidance. 

The Klickitat monitoring and evaluation program will build on existing programs 

designed for monitoring tributary habitat in the subbasin, hydropower actions in the MidColumbia, Mid-Columbia hatchery programs, and other actions outside of the MidColumbia tributary subbasins (e.g., Columbia mainstem hydropower, estuary and ocean 

conditions, mainstem and ocean harvest). The monitoring and evaluation program will 

provide (1) a clear statement of the metrics and indicators by which progress toward 

achieving goals can be assessed, (2) a plan for tracking such metrics and indicators, and 

(3) a decision framework through which new information from monitoring and 

evaluation can be used to adjust strategies or actions aimed at achieving the plan’s goals. 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

1. Introduction 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) to develop recovery plans for species listed under the Act. The purpose 

of recovery plans is to identify actions needed to restore threatened and endangered 

species to the point that they are again self-sustaining elements of their ecosystems and 

no longer need the protections of the ESA. 

This recovery plan focuses on the conservation and survival of Middle Columbia River 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Klickitat subbasin (Figure 1-1). The Klickitat 

River drains approximately 1,350 square miles in south central Washington before 

joining the Columbia River at Lyle, Washington (RM 180.4), 34 miles upstream of 

Bonneville Dam. The Klickitat is one of the longest undammed rivers in the Northwest. 

The subbasin supports both summer and winter runs of steelhead. 

Figure 1-1. Klickitat Subbasin.

“Steelhead” is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of the biological 

species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The species also has a non-anadromous, or resident, form 

1
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

that is commonly called rainbow trout. NMFS originally listed the species as threatened 

on March 25, 1999 (NMFS 1999), calling it an “evolutionarily significant unit” (ESU) of 

salmonids, which included both forms. Recently, NMFS revised its species 

determinations for West Coast steelhead under the ESA, delineating anadromous, 

steelhead-only “distinct population segments” (DPS). NMFS listed the Middle Columbia 

River steelhead DPS as threatened on January 5, 2006 (NMFS 2006a, 71 FR 834). The 

DPS is made up of steelhead populations in Oregon and Washington tributaries of the 

Columbia River upstream of the Hood and Wind River systems, up to and including the 

Yakima River. Reasons for listing the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS included 

low returns to the Yakima River, poor abundance estimates for Klickitat River and 

Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead, and an overall decline of naturally producing 

“stocks” within the DPS. 

The Klickitat River population is of particular interest because of containing both 

summer and winter runs, and it potentially could make a significant contribution to 

recovery of the Middle Columbia steelhead. The Klickitat River is one of the largest 

salmon producing watersheds in the Columbia basin. It is located above only one dam 

(Bonneville), contains headwaters in the well-managed forests of the Yakama 

Reservation, and has had relatively little development, with relatively low human 

population growth expected in the near future. Recent passage improvements at Castile 

Falls in the upper Klickitat have opened an additional 56 miles of high quality steelhead 

habitat. Passage improvements in the lower Klickitat (Lyle Falls at RM 2.2) are also 

expected to benefit immigrating adults. In addition, a hatchery master plan under 

development by the Yakama Nation in consultation with NMFS is expected to improve 

hatchery management to support conservation of the naturally spawning steelhead. 

NMFS developed this recovery plan with involvement and input from the Yakama 

Nation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Klickitat County, the Washington 

State Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, other Federal agencies, state agencies, local 

governments, and the public. While NMFS is the agency responsible for recovery 

planning for salmon and steelhead under the ESA, NMFS believes it is critically 

important to base ESA recovery plans for salmon on the many state, regional, tribal, 

local, and private conservation efforts already underway throughout the region. Local 

support of recovery plans by those whose activities directly affect the listed species, and 

whose actions will be most affected by recovery efforts, is essential. NMFS therefore 

supports and participates in locally led collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans, 

involving local communities, state, tribal, and Federal entities, and other stakeholders. 

1.1 Purpose of Plan

The Plan provides a roadmap for restoring the Klickitat steelhead population and its 

habitats to a level that supports recovery of the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS 

and allows the population to become a viable component of its ecosystem. 

The Plan is a guidance document. It describes the current status of the Klickitat 

population and its habitat in the Klickitat drainage, and summarizes the results of a 

technical assessment examining the population’s viability. The Plan also identifies the 

2
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

factors and threats potentially limiting the population and proposes strategies and actions 

designed to aid in the population’s recovery by building on past and current efforts. 

Finally, the Plan provides an implementation and adaptive management framework for 

making needed future adjustments on the road to recovery. 

1.1.1 ESA Requirements 

Section 4(f) of the ESA requires that a recovery plan be developed and implemented for 

species listed as endangered or threatened under the statute. 

ESA section 4(a)(1) lists factors for re-classification or delisting that are to be addressed 

in recovery plans: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of [the species’] 

habitat or range 

B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes 

C. Disease or predation 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence 

ESA section 4(f)(1)(B) directs that recovery plans, to the extent practicable, incorporate: 

1. a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to 

achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the species; 

2. objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in 

accordance with the provisions of this chapter, that the species be removed from the 

list; and; 

3. estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to 

achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal. 

In addition, it is important for recovery plans to provide the public and decision makers 

with a clear understanding of the goals and scientifically supported strategies needed to 

recover a listed species (NMFS 2006b). 

Once a species is deemed recovered and therefore removed from a listed status, section 

4(g) of the ESA requires the monitoring of the species for a period of not less than five 

years to ensure that it retains its recovered status. 

1.1.2 Coordination with Others 

The Plan aims to provide consistency among related recovery planning and management 

efforts, including NOAA’s Federal treaty and trust responsibilities and the many state and 

local entities involved in salmon recovery. 

Federal Treaty and Trust Responsibilities 

Northwest Native American tribes have legally enforceable treaty rights reserving to 

them a share of the harvestable salmon and steelhead. Achieving the basic purposes of 

the ESA such that the species no longer needs the protection of the Act may not by itself 

3
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

fully meet these rights and expectations, although it will lead to major improvements in 

the current situation. Ensuring a sufficient abundance of salmon to sustain harvest can be 

an important element in fulfilling trust and treaty rights as well as garnering public 

support for these plans. 

It is NMFS policy that recovery of salmonid populations must achieve two goals: (1) the 

recovery and delisting of salmonids listed under the provisions of the ESA, and (2) the 

restoration of the meaningful exercise of tribal fishing rights. “It is the agency’s view that 

there is no conflict between the statutory goals of the ESA and Federal trust responsibility 

to Indian tribes” (Letter from Terry Garcia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, to Ted Strong, Executive Director, Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 

July 21, 1998). Additionally, NMFS “will continue to join with states and tribes to 

develop a comprehensive approach to the restoration of fish and wildlife resources in a 

manner that fulfills all obligations under Federal law, including trust obligations to Indian 

tribes” (ibid.). 

Thus, it is appropriate for recovery plans to take these considerations into account and 

plan for a recovery strategy that includes harvest. In some cases, the desired abundances 

for harvest may come about through increases in the naturally spawning population. In 

others, the recovery strategy may include appropriate use of hatcheries to support a 

portion of the harvest. So long as the overall plan is likely to achieve the biological 

recovery of the listed ESU, it will be acceptable as a recovery plan. 

Treaty Native American fishing rights in the Columbia basin are under the continuing 

jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in the case of United 

States v. Oregon, No. 68-513 (filed in 1968). The parties to U.S. v. Oregon are the 

United States acting through the Department of Interior (USFWS and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs) and Department of Commerce (NMFS), the Warm Springs, Umatilla, Nez Perce, 

Yakama, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the states of Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho. In U.S. v. Oregon, the Court affirmed that the treaties reserved for the tribes 50 

percent of the harvestable surplus of fish destined to pass through their usual and 

accustomed fishing areas. 

The Klickitat watershed is part of the Yakama Nation’s ceded area. Yakama Nation staff 

developed much of the data on the Klickitat population. The Yakama Nation is 

voluntarily participating in recovery planning and implementation in the Yakima 

subbasin and throughout its ceded area as a sovereign with treaty-reserved rights on and 

off the reservation, and as a fish and wildlife co-manager. In so doing, the Yakama 

Nation does not waive or in any way alter its treaty-reserved rights. 

4
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Other Federal, State and Local Responsibilities 

To ensure consistency in goals, strategies, and actions and to eliminate needless 

duplication of effort, the process aims to provide consistency between planning for ESA 

recovery, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) Fish and Wildlife 

Program, the State of Washington Watershed Management and Salmon Recovery 

Programs, and local planning and regulatory efforts. 

This recovery plan follows ESA guidelines and builds upon direction in the Klickitat 

Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004). The 2004 Klickitat Subbasin Plan was developed for the 

NPCC by the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other 

Federal, state, and local entities. It contains an assessment and inventory of fish and 

wildlife resources in the subbasin, as well as a management plan establishing locally 

informed fish and wildlife protection and restoration priorities. The NPCC adopted the 

Klickitat Subbasin Plan into its Fish and Wildlife Program in 2004. The NPCC and 

Bonneville Power Administration use the Klickitat Subbasin Plan to direct funding for 

projects that protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife that have been adversely 

impacted by the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system, 

pursuant to their obligations for implementing the Northwest Power Act of 1980. 

Information and direction was also drawn from the Watershed Management Plan for 

Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 30, the Klickitat drainage. The Watershed 

Management Plan was developed and approved in accordance with Chapter 90.82 

Revised Code of Washington (Chapter 90.82 RCW). The “initiating governments” for 

the planning effort were Klickitat County, City of Goldendale, and Public Utility District 

No. 1 of Klickitat County (KPUD). The Watershed Management Plan provides for 5 

years of funding for watershed plan implementation via the WRIA planning organization. 

1.2 Context of Plan Development 

This plan for the Klickitat steelhead population is one part of a larger effort to recover 

species listed throughout the Pacific Northwest. Not only is it one of several recovery 

plans for steelhead populations in the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS, it is also 

one of many recovery plans within NMFS’ larger framework of recovery planning efforts 

for listed salmon and steelhead populations across the Pacific Northwest. 

Currently 13 ESUs and 6 DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest 

are listed under the ESA. NMFS has designated five geographically based recovery 

domains for preparing recovery plans for the listed species. The Middle Columbia River 

steelhead DPS falls within the Interior Columbia recovery domain (which is divided into 

three sub-domains: the Snake River, Mid-Columbia, and Upper Columbia). The other 

recovery domains are the Willamette/Lower Columbia, Puget Sound and Washington 

Coast, Oregon Coast, and the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast. 

(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/MiddleUpper-Columbia/Index.cfm). Similar opportunities for technical and stakeholder 

involvement exist in each domain. 

5
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

1.2.1 Technical Recovery Teams 

For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of scientists, nominated for their geographic 

and species expertise, to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The 

charge of each Technical Recovery Team (TRT) was to define ESU/DPS structures, 

develop recommendations on biological viability criteria for each ESU or DPS and its 

component populations, provide scientific support to local and regional recovery 

planning efforts, and provide scientific evaluations of proposed recovery plans. All the 

TRTs used the same biological principles for developing their recommendations for 

ESU/DPS and population viability criteria – criteria to be used, along with criteria based 

on mitigation of the factors for decline, to determine whether a species has recovered 

sufficiently to be downlisted or delisted. These principles are described in a NMFS 

technical memorandum, Viable Salmon Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily 

Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). Viable salmonid populations (VSP) are defined 

in terms of four parameters: abundance, population productivity or growth rate, 

population spatial structure, and diversity. A viable ESU/DPS is naturally self-sustaining, 

with a high probability of persistence over a 100-year time period. Each TRT made 

recommendations using the VSP framework, based on data availability, the unique 

biological characteristics of the ESUs/DPSs and habitats in the domain, and the 

members’ collective experience and expertise. Although NMFS has encouraged the TRTs 

to develop regionally specific approaches for evaluating viability and identifying factors 

limiting recovery, all the TRTs are working from a common scientific foundation. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) provided technical support for 

the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS recovery planning effort. The ICTRT included 

biologists from NMFS, state and tribal entities, and academic institutions. 

1.2.2 Planning Forums 

In each domain, NMFS has worked with state, tribal, local and other Federal entities to 

develop planning forums that build to the extent possible on ongoing, locally led recovery 

efforts. NMFS defined “management units” based on jurisdictional boundaries as well as 

areas where citizen planning efforts were underway. The Mid-Columbia management 

units are (1) Oregon; (2) Washington Gorge, which, in turn, is subdivided into three 

planning areas, White Salmon, Klickitat, and Rock Creek; (3) Yakima subbasin; and (4) 

Southeast Washington. These management units have active planning and 

implementation forums, with the exception of the Washington Gorge Management. In the 

Washington Gorge Management Unit, NMFS has worked independently with the 

Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Klickitat 

County, and local entities to develop the recovery plan for the Klickitat steelhead 

population. NMFS encourages the formation of a planning forum for the Washington 

Gorge Management Unit (Figure 1-2). 

6
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Figure 1-2. Management Units for Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 

7
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

1.3 How NMFS Intends to Use the Plan 

Although recovery plans are not regulatory and their implementation is voluntary, they 

are important tools that help to do the following: 

• Provide context for regulatory decisions. 

• Guide decision making by Federal, state, tribal, and local jurisdictions. 

• Provide criteria for status reporting and delisting decisions. 

• Organize, prioritize, and sequence recovery actions. 

• Organize research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts. 

NMFS will encourage Federal agencies and non-Federal jurisdictions to take recovery 

plans under serious consideration as they make the following sorts of decisions and 

allocate their resources: 

• Actions carried out to meet Federal ESA section 7(a)(1) obligations 

• Actions that are subject to ESA sections 4d, 7(a)(2), or 10 

• Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and permit requests 

• Harvest plans and permits 

• Selection and prioritization of subbasin planning actions 

• Development of research, monitoring, and evaluation programs 

• Revision of land use and resource management plans 

• Other natural resource decisions at the state, tribal, and local levels 

NMFS will emphasize recovery plans in ESA section 7 (a)(2) consultations, section 10 

permits, and application of the section 4(d) rule by considering: 

• Delisting criteria that address both viability and threats 

• Description of limiting factors and threats (factors for decline) 

• Description of a recovery program (site-specific management actions necessary to 

achieve recovery of the species) 

• Estimates of the time and cost to carry out measures to achieve the plans’ goals 

In implementing these programs, recovery plans will be used as a reference and a source 

of context, expectations, and goals. NMFS staff will encourage the Federal “Action 

Agencies” to describe in their biological assessments how their proposed actions will 

affect specific populations and limiting factors identified in the recovery plans, and to 

describe any mitigating measures and voluntary recovery activities in the action area. 

8
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

2. Biological Background 

This chapter describes population and habitat characteristics for Middle Columbia River 

steelhead in the Klickitat subbasin. The chapter also discusses hatchery production and 

releases and harvest management in the Klickitat subbasin. 

2.1 Populations and Major Population Groups 

The ICTRT identified 17 extant and 3 extirpated independent steelhead populations in the 

Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS (McClure et al. 2003). These populations are 

shown in Figure 2-1. The ICTRT delineated the populations based on genetic 

information, geography, life history traits, morphological traits, and population dynamics. 

The ICTRT grouped these independent populations into four major population groups 

(MPGs) within the DPS: the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG, Yakima subbasin 

MPG, John Day River MPG, and Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. The Klickitat River 

population is one of five extant populations (Klickitat River, Fifteenmile Creek, Rock 

Creek, Deschutes Eastside, and Deschutes Westside) and two extirpated populations 

(White Salmon River and Deschutes Crooked River) comprising the Cascades Eastern 

Slope Tributaries MPG (Figure 2-2). Populations in the group are united primarily by 

proximity and occupy diverse habitats, generally those draining the eastern slopes of the 

Cascades and the Columbia Plateau. 

2.2 Physical Setting 

The Klickitat River drains an area of approximately 1,350 square miles in south central 

Washington. It begins in the Cascades Mountains below Cispus Pass near 5,000 feet 

elevation and flows just over 95 miles to join the Columbia River at Lyle, Washington 

(RM 180.4), 34 miles upstream of Bonneville Dam (elevation 74 feet). It is one of the 

longest undammed rivers in the Northwest. The Klickitat drainage stretches west to the 

Cascade Mountain crest, north and east to the basalt ridges and plateaus of the Yakama 

Reservation, and south to the Columbia River Gorge. Major tributaries to the Klickitat 

River include Swale Creek (RM 17.2), Little Klickitat River (RM 19.8), Outlet Creek 

(RM 39.7), Big Muddy Creek (RM 53.8), West Fork Klickitat River (RM 63.1), and 

Diamond Fork (RM 76.8) (NPCC 2004). Major Creek is a small tributary to the 

Columbia River that lies just downstream of the Klickitat River drainage and is believed 

to support Middle Columbia steelhead. Appendix I provides an overview of the Major 

Creek watershed and current knowledge concerning steelhead use. 

9
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Figure 2-1. Independent Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. 

Forests cover three-quarters of the watershed: the Yakama Nation is the primary 

timberland landowner. These lands are managed according to the Yakama Nation Forest 

Management Plan, which designates the Klickitat watershed a “Reserve Area,” where no 

timber harvest is planned. The State of Washington and numerous private parties own the 

remaining forested land, which is managed pursuant to the State Forest Practices Rules 

and an approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The rest of the watershed is used 

primarily for pasture, orchards, dry-land farming and livestock grazing. Agricultural use 

is concentrated in the Glenwood/Camas Prairie area in the western part of the watershed 

and on the southeastern plateau. Portions of the southernmost part of the Klickitat 

subbasin are within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (extending roughly 

3 miles upstream from the mouth) (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/maps/map.htm). 

The lower 10 miles of the Klickitat River are designated as a Recreational River under 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-klickitat.html). The 

10
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Klickitat Wildlife Area, owned and managed by WDFW, covers 14,700 acres, 

encompasses a significant portion of the Klickitat River between the confluence with the 

Little Klickitat River and White Creek, as well as smaller segments of land along the 

lower river, downstream of the Little Klickitat River 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/mpl/mpl30.pdf. Columbia Land Trust 

recently acquired for conservation the west bank of the Klickitat River extending from 

just below the confluence with the Little Klickitat River north approximately 15 miles. 

Figure 2-2. Major Population Groups and Populations of Middle Columbia Steelhead.

Several entities share responsibility for land and water management in the Klickitat 

subbasin (Figure 2-3). The subbasin is almost equally divided between Klickitat and 

Yakima counties. The City of Goldendale is the Klickitat County seat. The City of 

Yakima is the Yakima County seat. The subbasin supports a total population of 

approximately 11,000 people. As of the 2000 census, the City of Goldendale had a 

population of 3,760 (www.census.gov). The towns of Klickitat, Lyle, and Glenwood are 

unincorporated. The Yakama Nation is also a caretaker of subbasin resources. The 

Yakama Reservation comprises 1,573 square miles in Klickitat and Yakima counties. 

About a third of the Klickitat watershed, including the headwaters of the Klickitat River, 

lies within the reservation. The Yakama Nation ceded the rest of the Klickitat area in the 

June 9, 1855 treaty with the United States, reserving fishing, hunting and gathering 

rights, among other rights and responsibilities. The Klickitat watershed contains a “usual 

and accustomed fishing area” of historical, traditional, and modern cultural significance 

11
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

at Lyle Falls. In addition, the subbasin falls within Washington’s Middle Columbia River 

Salmon Recovery Region ─ one of several Salmon Recovery Regions designated within 

Washington State ─ which includes salmon-bearing streams in Benton, Kittitas, Yakima, 

and parts of Chelan and Klickitat counties. It is also designated as the state’s Water 

Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 30. 

Figure 2-3. Klickitat Subbasin Land Ownership, Towns and Stream Locations (NPCC 2004).

2.3 Ecosystem Conditions 

The Klickitat subbasin consists primarily of a basalt plateau with a total thickness of 

several thousand feet (Cline 1976), which is dissected by deep, steep-walled canyons 

carved by the watershed’s network of streams and rivers. The Klickitat River, for 

example, flows through a deep canyon (700 to 1500 feet deep), and most of its tributaries 

are similarly incised. The erosion-resistant nature of some of the basalt strata has caused 

the formation of numerous waterfalls that restrict fish movement, including three notable 

waterfalls: Lyle Falls (RM 2.2 on the mainstem Klickitat River), Castile Falls (RM 64.0 

to 64.5 on the mainstem Klickitat River), and Little Klickitat Falls (RM 6.1 on the Little 

Klickitat River). 

2.3.1 Hydrology 

Most streams in the Klickitat subbasin have natural runoff patterns, since there is no flow 

regulation within the watershed. Flow in the Klickitat River is primarily fed by snowmelt 

in spring and early summer, and by glacial melt in late spring and summer. Peak flows in 

the upper subbasin (upstream of Cedar Valley tributaries and some of the smaller 

tributaries to the north of Glenwood, e.g. Dairy and Bacon creeks) are predominantly 

12
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

snowmelt-driven, although the largest events (e.g., 1996) involve rain at high elevations 

and rapid melting throughout the entire Klickitat subbasin (Figure 2-4). Peak flows in the 

middle and lower Klickitat subbasin often occur during the winter and are driven by rainon-snow events. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Mean Monthly Discharge (cfs)

USGS 14107000 KLICKITAT

RIVER ABOVE WEST FORK

NEAR GLENWOOD

USGS 14111400 KLICKITAT

RIVER BL SUMMIT CREEK

NEAR GLENWOOD

USGS 14113000 KLICKITAT

RIVER NEAR PITT

USGS 14112000 LITTLE

KLICKITAT RIVER NEAR

GOLDENDALE

USGS 14112500 LITTLE

KLICKITAT RIVER NEAR

WAHKIACUS

USGS 14110000 KLICKITAT

RIVER NEAR GLENWOOD

Figure 2-4. Mean Monthly Stream Flow for Six USGS-Operated Gauges on the Little Klickitat and 

Mainstem Klickitat rivers. (data source: USGS 2009).

The Little Klickitat River flows from the Simcoe Mountains and is largely fed by 

snowmelt supplemented by base flow from groundwater sources. Snow melts out of the 

Simcoe Mountains earlier than in the Cascade Mountains and snow pack tends to be 

substantially smaller. Peak flows in the Little Klickitat occur through the winter because 

the elevation of the watershed is within the rain-on-snow zone. The Little Klickitat River 

has continuous flow over nearly all of its length (Ecology 2008). 

In some areas, groundwater discharge adds substantial flow to local streams. The 

volcanic rocks on the Mt. Adams side of the Klickitat River contain permeable volcanic 

debris and lava tubes. The Columbia River Basalt that underlies most of the Klickitat 

River Basin represents the largest source for groundwater supply within the subbasin. 

Cline (1976) estimates that about 60 percent of the average annual stream flow leaving 

the Yakama Reservation in the Klickitat River is groundwater discharge, with individual 

springs discharging up to 40 cubic feet/second (cfs). Springs are common in the Camas 

Prairie (Glenwood) area, reflecting the abundance of shallow ground water in the area 

(WPN and Aspect 2005a). 

The middle and upper subbasin provide the vast majority of surface and ground water 

that contribute to mainstem baseflow. As shown in Figure 2-4, flow that supports the 

lower Klickitat River from July through November originates from the upper and middle 

Klickitat subbasin (measured at Summit Creek).

Low flow may limit steelhead production in many streams in the lower and middle 

Klickitat watersheds. In the lower subbasin, Swale Creek, Knight Canyon, Dillacort, 

Wheeler, upper Canyon, Beeks Canyon, and Dead Canyon creeks, and portions of White 

13
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Creek, dry up partially or completely in most years (WPN and Aspect 2005a). The only 

lower subbasin tributaries that maintain continuous or nearly continuous surface flow are 

the Little Klickitat River, Logging Camp Canyon and Snyder Canyon creeks, though 

perennial flows become restricted to middle and upper portions of Logging Camp 

Canyon and Snyder Creek after mid- to late-June (J. Spencer, personal communication 

2006). 

2.3.2 Water Quality 

Water quality in the Klickitat River is influenced by natural and human factors. Glaciers 

on Mt. Adams, a 12,000-foot dormant volcano with an extensive glacier system, are 

prone to occasional outburst floods that deliver torrents of water, volcanic debris, and 

fine sediment via snowmelt to Big Muddy and Little Muddy creeks and the West Fork 

Klickitat. This results in high mainstem suspended sediment during summer months that 

colors the Klickitat River from the West Fork to the Columbia River, 63 miles 

downstream. Fine sediments associated with forestry, roads, agricultural practices, and 

construction may also be delivered to streams. The quantities of sediment delivered 

through land use practices and the effects of anthropogenic inputs have not been 

evaluated. 

One segment of Swale Creek has been included on the Washington Department of 

Ecology’s (WDOE’s) 2008 list of impaired water bodies (303d list) because of 

temperature impairment (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html). 

A water quality study was completed between June and December 2003 to assess the 

water temperature situation in Swale Creek and to estimate the potential and natural 

temperature situation in the lower portion of the creek which runs through a canyon 

(WPN and Aspect 2005a). The temperature criterion of 18oC was exceeded at all stations 

monitored in 2003. Under current conditions, the upper two reaches of the canyon 

(covering roughly nine miles) are largely dry, with isolated bedrock dominated pools. In 

this area, shade tends to be very sparse around the pools (<25 percent). The lower three 

miles of Swale Creek (excluding the mouth) maintain a continuous flow during summer 

months with negligible volume (estimated at 0.25 to 0.5 cfs during the 2003 study; WPN 

and Aspect 2005a). Shade in the lower three miles approaches 100 percent effective 

shade in some areas. The Klickitat River Watershed Management Plan, developed 

pursuant to section 90.82 RCW, calls for an analysis to determine whether Swale Creek is 

appropriately categorized with respect to Washington State’s surface water temperature 

standards, and it calls for the development and implementation of a plan to improve 

stream temperatures (WPN and Aspect 2005b). According to a 2002 assessment, Swale 

Creek has the potential to provide viable habitat for anadromous salmonids if the channel 

is restored and perennial water enhanced (Inter-Fluve 2002). 

Several reaches in the Little Klickitat River were previously on WDOE’s water quality 

assessment (also known as the 303(d) list) as Category 5 (i.e., impaired) for water 

temperature, but were reclassified to “Category 4A” (water bodies that have an approved 

TMDL) once the TMDL was completed for that subbasin (Brock and Stohr 2002, 

Anderson 2004, Ecology 2008). The TMDL and its detailed implementation plan outline 

actions to be taken to increase shade levels and stream flow in the Little Klickitat River 

14
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

subbasin. Many of these actions are being implemented. The City of Goldendale 

previously relied on springs to meet water demand. Use of most of the spring facilities 

has been discontinued in favor of deep groundwater sources (personal communication, 

Dave Griffin, City of Goldendale). The Central Klickitat Conservation District (CKCD), 

in cooperation with area landowners, has completed tree planting along the stream in 

many areas (personal communication, Jim Hill CKCD). In 2006 the CKCD was awarded 

a grant for stream flow and temperature monitoring, riparian planting, and other actions 

to implement the TMDL Detailed Implementation Plan. A study completed in 2009 

comparing riparian condition current canopy closure condition with historical photos 

found that riparian cover along the stream has been increasing over the past 30 to 40 

years (Aspect and WPN 2009). The study results will serve as a baseline for future 

monitoring. Other actions to address the temperature issue in the stream are in progress. 

2.3.3 Riparian Function and Condition 

Riparian areas in most of the subbasin remain more or less intact; however, in some areas 

past and current timber harvest practices, roads, cattle access to riparian areas, and other 

localized actions have resulted in riparian corridor degradation. 

In the plateau reaches, agricultural and urban land uses likely had a significant impact on 

the ecological functions of the riparian forest. The McCormick Meadow area of the 

upper Klickitat River in the tribally designated Primitive Area was heavily grazed for 

approximately 60 years, leaving a legacy of related problems (e.g., bank erosion, poor 

riparian cover, etc.). Heavy grazing in the area was terminated about 15 years ago and 

more recent grazing has been lighter. Riparian vegetation along Swale Creek and the 

Little Klickitat River has been increasing over the past 30 to 40 years (Aspect and WPN 

2009). There has been no assessment of trends in riparian vegetation along the lower 

Klickitat River. 

Reductions in beaver populations in the subbasin may have contributed to the drying and 

loss of some wetland and riparian habitats. Outlet Creek has been mechanically drained 

through the construction of ditches, but there is a natural barrier to steelhead near the 

mouth of the creek. It is possible that loss of wetlands in tributary headwaters in 

conjunction with water withdrawals may have diminished storage capacity and recharge 

capability. However, studies by USGS in other basins indicate that surface irrigation can 

increase recharge over predevelopment conditions, depending on the scale of the 

irrigation and other variables (Bauer and Vaccaro 1990, Vaccaro and Olsen 2007). A 

detailed examination of the hydrology of the Klickitat subbasin currently underway as 

part of implementing the WRIA 30 watershed plan will be useful for recovery planning. 

2.3.4 Migration Barriers 

The presence of several natural migration barriers in the Klickitat watershed may have 

historically limited anadromous fish production, particularly during low water years. The 

Klickitat River flows through a deep, steep-walled canyon with several historically 

impassable or marginally passable falls and cascades where the river flows over resistant 

bedrock. In addition, access to many of the tributaries is restricted because of impassably 

high gradients close to the tributary mouths. Such historical barriers were important in 

15
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

maintaining separate life history strategies of O. mykiss, including summer steelhead, 

winter steelhead and resident rainbow trout. 

The most significant natural barriers are the following: 

• Lyle Falls (RM 2.2), a series of 5 falls from 4 to 12 feet high that historically were 

considered impassable during lowest water conditions in the summer and early 

fall (WSCC 2000). Historical data on steelhead distribution in the Klickitat 

subbasin are scarce; however, it is assumed that summer steelhead, like spring 

Chinook, were able to negotiate Lyle Falls (Bryant 1949). In 1952, Washington 

Department of Fisheries removed rock and constructed two fishways at the falls. 

Currently, Lyle Falls is not a barrier to salmon and steelhead, but passage at the 

natural falls is considered difficult under certain flow conditions (WSCC 2000). 

Planned repairs, modifications, and retrofits to the Lyle Falls Fishway will 

increase passage into the Klickitat subbasin. 

• Castile Falls (RM 64), a series of 11 falls with an elevation drop of 80 feet over 

one-half mile. The falls historically presented an impediment to upstream passage 

of adult fish, but a 1960s attempt to improve fish passage at the falls inadvertently 

obstructed nearly all migration to habitat above the fishway. Recent 

improvements, including development of the Castile Falls Fishway, were 

completed in 2005 and provide steelhead and Chinook passage to the headwaters 

of the Klickitat. The fishway allows access to approximately 56 miles of 

spawning and rearing habitat in the upper mainstem and tributaries (NPCC 2004). 

• Little Klickitat River Falls (RM 6.1), a 15 to 16-foot falls, restricts steelhead 

access to habitat areas in the upper Little Klickitat drainage. Fish passage is 

possible in rare cases, but these tend to be very high flow events (floods) in winter 

(D. Rawding, personal communication 2006). Steelhead redds above the falls 

were documented in 1996 and 1997, but these were years of high stream flow 

(WPN and Aspect 2005a). Further research is needed to obtain accurate estimates 

of passage frequency above the falls and steelhead spawning in the upper Little 

Klickitat (NPCC 2004). 

• Two sets of falls on the West Fork Klickitat River ― a 15 to 20-foot falls at RM 

0.3 and another 15 to 20-foot falls just below the confluence of Little Muddy 

Creek and Fish Lake Stream at RM 4.8 ― currently hinder upstream anadromous 

fish passage, and probably limited historical passage to upstream habitat 

(Thiesfeld 2001). 

• A steep set of falls near the mouth of Surveyor’s Creek. "The stream is impassible 

to salmon from the mouth upstream for about 0.8 mile. This area drops 400 feet 

in a series of cascades and impassable falls formed by huge slabs of 

rock" (LeMeir and Smith 1952). 

16
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

• A 60 foot falls on Outlet Creek (RM 1.1) presents a complete barrier to all 

salmonids both presently and historically. 

2.4 Life History Characteristics 

Oncorhynchus mykiss, of which steelhead and rainbow trout are members, have a 

wide variety of life history strategies (Busby et al. 1996). Anadromy is not obligatory 

in O. mykiss, and the heritability of anadromy is much debated (Rounsefell 1958; 

Mullan et al. 1992). Progeny of anadromous steelhead can spend their entire lives in 

freshwater (residualize), while progeny of rainbow trout can migrate seaward. 

Although anadromous steelhead are the focus of interest within the Klickitat, both 

anadromous and resident forms are well documented in the Klickitat watershed. 

Resident rainbow trout are more widespread in the upper mainstem and perennial 

tributaries without barriers than in the lower subbasin tributaries. Anecdotal 

evidence, however, suggests historically wider distribution and greater population of 

resident O. mykiss in the Klickitat subbasin (B. Sharp, personal communication with 

YN Tribal Elders 2007). 

Steelhead can be divided into two basic run types based on their level of sexual maturity 

at the time they enter fresh water and the duration of the spawning migration. The 

stream-maturing type, or summer steelhead, enters fresh water in a sexually immature 

condition and requires several months in fresh water to mature and spawn. The oceanmaturing type, or winter steelhead, enters fresh water with well-developed gonads and 

spawns relatively shortly after river entry (Bambrick et al. 2004).

The Klickitat River subbasin supports runs of winter and summer steelhead. Both are 

native to the system. Ocean-maturing or winter-run fish typically ascend streams 

between November and April, while summer-run, stream-maturing fish typically enter 

rivers between May and October. Genetic analysis shows some degree of differentiation 

between tributaries to the Klickitat River; genetic samples from the upper Klickitat, 

White Creek and Trout Creek seem to diverge most widely from the Skamania Hatchery 

stock (Phelps et al. 2000). Six or seven genetically distinct subpopulations have been 

identified within the Klickitat subbasin in recent genetic analysis (Narum et al. 2006). 

Analysis of genetic structure of Klickitat O. mykiss is ongoing. Further genetic sampling 

of adult native summer and winter steelhead will help identify genetic structure and 

enable a parentage analysis. 

All winter populations in the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS are small and 

unmonitored. Oregon estimates that during the early 2000s there were approximately 

500 winter steelhead distributed across several small basins centered near Fifteenmile 

Creek. Washington populations are centered near the Klickitat. More accurate 

abundance estimates and productivity information are not available for winter steelhead 

populations in this DPS (WDFW and ODFW 2006). Little is known for certain about the 

small winter-run in the Klickitat (of perhaps <100 spawners), though winter steelhead 

appear to ascend into the river from November to April, peaking in March. Howell et al. 

(1985) hypothesized that winter-run fish spawned in the mainstem Klickitat from just 

above the confluence with the Columbia to the Little Klickitat confluence from March 

17
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

through June. Recent years of observations show that mainstem steelhead spawning is 

concentrated between the Little Klickitat (RM 20.44) and Leidl Bridge (RM 32). It is 

difficult to differentiate between the spawning distributions of the two stocks.

Steelhead spawn in clear, cool streams with suitable gravel size, depth and flow velocity. 

Productive steelhead habitat is characterized by complexity, primarily in the form of 

large and small wood. Depending on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate for 

1.5 to four months before hatching. Summer rearing takes place primarily in the faster 

parts of pools, although young-of-the-year are abundant in glides and riffles. Winter 

rearing occurs more uniformly at lower densities across a wide range of fast and slow 

habitat types (Bambrick et al. 2004). 

Young steelhead typically rear in streams for some time before migrating to the ocean as 

smolts, which usually peaks in April and May in the Klickitat (Howell et al. 1985). 

Steelhead smolts migrate at ages ranging from 1-5 years throughout the Columbia Basin: 

Klickitat steelhead age composition consists of 13 percent 1-year, 83 percent 2-year and 4 

percent 3-year outmigrants (Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 

2003; Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and 

Babcock 2009). Some older juveniles may move downstream to rear in larger tributaries 

and mainstem rivers. Steelhead grow rapidly after reaching the ocean, where they forage 

in coastal and offshore waters of the North Pacific. Most steelhead spend two years in 

the ocean (range 1-4) before migrating back to their natal stream (Shapovalov and Taft 

1954; Narver 1969; Ward and Slaney 1988). Once in the river, steelhead rarely eat and 

grow little, if at all (Maher and Larkin 1954). These combined behaviors produce fish 

that range between 3 and 7 years of age at the time of spawning. 

Some steelhead are iteroparous (do not die after spawning). A small proportion of repeat 

spawners (known as kelts) may return to the ocean for a short period and repeat the 

spawning migration, a life history adaptation that may be fundamental to ensuring 

population stability. Respawning rates may be affected by environmental conditions, 

location of the natal stream, sex, size at maturity, and differences in the energy 

investment of spawning among different stocks and species (Fleming 1998). Winter-run 

fish tend to have higher respawning rates, and enter fresh water in a sexually mature 

state, while summer fish tend to mature sexually in fresh water (Withler 1966). Reduced 

genetic contributions from populations formerly supplemented by repeat spawners may 

contribute to the decline of steelhead stocks in the Columbia River Basin (NMFS 2000). 

Iteroparity rates for Klickitat River steelhead were reported at 3.2 percent from combined 

sampling periods 1979 to 1981 (Howell et al. 1985) and 2005 (Yakama Nation and 

WDFW unpublished adult trapping data 2005). Sampling of adults at Lyle Falls Fishway 

in 2004 and 2005 has indicated repeat spawning rates of 2.9 percent for summer 

steelhead and 8.8 percent for winters. Most repeat spawners are females. Acquiring 

better estimates of kelt presence in the subbasin remains a priority for the Yakama 

Nation. 

18
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Existing data on steelhead sex ratio, age structure and frequency of re-spawning in the 

Klickitat subbasin is based on a sport catch sample from 1979-1981, and preliminary 

results from the Lyle Falls adult trap sampling and scale analysis conducted from July 

2004 to October 2005 (Yakama Nation and WDFW unpublished adult trapping data 

2005). Trapping efficiency and steelhead passage frequency through the ladder at Lyle 

Falls are still not certain, but it is likely that the sample represents only a small 

percentage of the total run. 

During adult trap sampling and scale analysis, researchers identified adult fish as winter 

or summer steelhead based on a combination of observed morphological traits, inmigration timing, copepods, and scale analysis. Scales from both hatchery and wild fish 

were sampled and a determination of age made; however, only those fish for which there 

was a high level of certainty as to their run affiliation (winter or summer) were included 

in the demographic analysis (C. Frederiksen, personal communication 2006). Wild are 

identified as non-clipped adult returns into the Lyle adult trap. Skamania Hatchery 

summer steelhead (100 percent marked) are released as smolts into the lower Klickitat 

River. There are no hatchery winter steelhead releases. 

Combined results from the two sampling periods show that ocean ages at return of adult 

summer steelhead averaged 16.7 percent 1-ocean, 72.8 percent 2-ocean, 7.3 percent 3-

ocean and 3.2 percent consisting of repeat spawners (Figure 2-5). Females constituted 

57.5 percent of the sample; males 42.5 percent. Figure 2-6 illustrates the length 

frequency distribution at ocean age of Klickitat summer-run steelhead. Trap data also 

suggest that hatchery steelhead have an earlier peak in migration timing than wild fish 

(Yakama Nation and WDFW unpublished adult trapping data 2005). 

Among those fish identified as winter steelhead during the adult trapping period of 2004-

2005, 1-ocean fish were predominant 47.1 percent, 2-ocean fish made up 41.2 percent of 

the sample, and 8.8 percent were 3-ocean fish and 8.8 percent were repeat spawners 

(Figure 2-7). The proportion of female to male winter steelhead was 64.5 to 35.5 percent. 

Due to the sampling period representing one returning brood year, ocean age structures 

depicted here for winter-run steelhead may not be representative of average ocean age 

composition (Yakama Nation and WDFW unpublished adult trapping data 2005). Figure 

2-8 illustrates the length frequency distribution at ocean age of Klickitat winter-run 

steelhead. 

Genetic analysis currently being conducted may contribute to data distinguishing the two 

steelhead runs in the subbasin. Sampling will continue in the future. Results of ongoing 

analysis will help to better differentiate the run timing between summer and winter 

steelhead, and provide additional data on the age structure, sex ratio and length frequency 

of fishing passing through the adult trap. 

19
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

16.7%

72.8%

7.3% 3.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Proportion

Summer Steelhead

Klickitat River Wild Summer Run Steelhead 

Ocean Age Composition: 1979-81, 2005

1 Ocean

2 Ocean

3 Ocean

Repeat S

Figure 2-5. Average Ocean Age Composition of Wild Summer Steelhead in the Klickitat River, 2004-

2005 (Yakama Nation and WDFW unpublished adult trapping data 2005). 

Figure 2-6. Frequency Distribution of Fork Length2 at Ocean Age of Wild Summer Steelhead in the 

Klickitat River, 2004-2005 (Yakama Nation and WDFW unpublished adult trapping data 2005). 

 

2

 Length of fish from tip of nose to fork of tail. 

1 Ocean

2 Ocean

 3 Ocean

20
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

21

47.1%

41.2%

2.9%

8.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Winter Steelhead

Klickitat Wild Winter Run Steelhead 

Ocean Age Composition 2005

1 Ocean

2 Ocean

3 Ocean

Repeat S

Figure 2-7. Average Ocean Age Composition of Klickitat Wild Winter-run Steelhead (Yakama 

Nation and WDFW unpublished adult trapping data 2005). 

Figure 2-8. Frequency Distribution of Fork Length at Ocean Age of Wild Winter Steelhead in the 

Klickitat River, 2004-2005 (Yakama Nation and WDFW unpublished adult trapping data 2005).

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Proportion

46 -

50

51 -

55

56 -

60

61 -

65

66 -

70

71 -

75

76 -

80

81 -

85

85 -

90

100

-

Fork Length (CM)

Klickitat Winter Steelhead Frequency Distribution of 

Fork Length at Ocean Age

1 Ocean

2 Ocean

3 Ocean

*Only 1, 3-ocean wild winter steelhead was sampled, hence the abnormally high apparent proportion of fish 

assigned to large fork lengths. 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

3. Recovery Goals and Viability Criteria 

The primary goal of ESA recovery plans is for the species to reach the point that it no 

longer needs the protection of the Act – i.e. to be delisted. Recovery plans may also 

contain “broad-sense goals,” defined in the recovery planning process, that go beyond the 

requirements for delisting to address, for example, other legislative mandates or social, 

economic, and ecological values. 

Delisting criteria are applied at the DPS level, and are based on determinations of the 

viability of the independent populations that make up the DPS. Criteria for delisting the 

Middle Columbia steelhead DPS are described in the Middle Columbia Steelhead ESA 

Recovery Plan, to which this plan is an appendix. This chapter provides recovery goals 

for the Klickitat steelhead population, describes the criteria to be used to assess progress 

toward those goals, and describes the role of the Klickitat steelhead population in overall 

DPS viability. 

There are two kinds of criteria that enter into a delisting decision: population, or 

demographic parameters (the biological recovery criteria) and “threats” criteria related to 

the five listing factors detailed in the ESA. The threats criteria define the conditions 

under which the listing factors, or threats, can be considered to be addressed or mitigated. 

Together these make up the “objective, measurable criteria” required under section 

4(f)(1)(B) of the ESA. Both kinds of criteria are discussed in this chapter.

3.1 Recovery Goals 

The primary goal of this plan is for the Klickitat steelhead population to be restored to 

viable status and thus to support recovery of the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. A viable 

salmonid population is defined as an independent population that has negligible risk of 

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

If a local, collaborative Washington Gorge Recovery Board is formed, it may choose to 

define additional, broad-sense goals for the Klickitat subbasin and other areas within the 

Washington Gorge Management Unit. The Board’s broad-sense goals for the area would 

likely build on direction, and respond to the interests identified by various stakeholders in 

the area. These goals would then guide the Board as it defines and implements future 

recovery actions for the Klickitat subbasin. 

In the meantime, the Yakama Nation has proposed, as a broad-sense goal for the Klickitat 

steelhead population, the achievement of “highly viable” status, which corresponds to a 

one percent risk of extinction in a 100-year period. Achieving highly viable status for the 

population would provide for long-term, sustainable harvest and other social, cultural, 

and ceremonial needs, although it would likely exceed the minimum necessary to support 

delisting the DPS. 

26
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

3.2 Biological Viability Criteria 

The ICTRT developed biologically based viability criteria for ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead in the Interior Columbia domain. The ICTRT based its approach to recovery 

on guidance from the NMFS Technical Memorandum, Viable Salmonid Populations and 

the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). This 

memorandum provides general direction for setting viability objectives at the ESU/DPS 

and component population levels. 

Viability criteria at the population level address four VSP parameters (McElhany et al. 

2000): 

• Abundance – the average number of spawners in a population over a generation or 

more, 

• Productivity – the performance of a population over time in terms of recruits 

produced per spawner, 

• Spatial Structure – a population’s geographic distribution and the processes that 

affect that distribution, and 

• Diversity – the distribution of genetic, life history and phenotypic variation within 

and among populations. 

The ICTRT grouped specific population level criteria into two categories to assess 

viability at the independent population level: measures addressing abundance and 

productivity, and measures addressing spatial structure and diversity. The viability of an 

independent population is determined by integrating risks across the four parameters. 

3.2.1 DPS and MPG Viability Criteria 

Since MPGs are geographically and genetically cohesive groups of populations, they are 

critical components of ESU/DPS spatial structure and diversity. Having all MPGs within 

an ESU/DPS at low risk provides the greatest probability of persistence for the ESU/DPS. 

Thus, the ICTRT criterion for a viable ESU/DPS is that all extant MPGs and any 

extirpated MPGs critical for proper functioning of the ESU/DPS should be at low risk. 

Further, the following five criteria should be met for an MPG to be regarded as low risk 

(viable) (ICTRT 2007): 

1. At least one-half of the populations historically within the MPG (with a 

minimum of two populations) should meet viability standards. 

2. At least one population should be classified as “Highly Viable.” 

3. Viable populations within an MPG should include some populations classified 

(based on historical intrinsic potential) as “Very Large," "Large," or 

“Intermediate,” generally reflecting the proportions historically present within 

the MPG. In particular, Very Large and Large populations should be at or 

above their composite historical fraction within each MPG. 

27
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

4. All major life history strategies (e.g. spring and summer run timing) that were 

present historically within the MPG should be represented in populations 

meeting viability requirements. 

5. Remaining MPG populations should be maintained with sufficient abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity to provide for ecological functions 

and to preserve options for ESU/DPS recovery. 

3.2.2 Application of Biological Viability Criteria to Klickitat Population 

The ICTRT classified the Klickitat steelhead population as an “Intermediate” sized 

population based on historical habitat potential (ICTRT 2007). 

Applying the ICTRT’s viability criteria to the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG 

results in the conclusion that the Klickitat steelhead population should reach viable status 

in order to support overall DPS viability, because of the population’s historical 

abundance and the presence of both summer and winter runs. 

Abundance 

For an Intermediate population, viable status, i.e. a 5 percent or less risk of extinction 

over a 100-year timeframe, would require a mean minimum abundance threshold of 

1,000 naturally produced spawners. 

Productivity 

Viable populations demonstrate sufficient productivity to support a net replacement rate 

of 1:1 or higher at abundance levels established as long-term targets. Productivity rates 

at relatively low numbers of spawners should, on average, be sufficiently greater than 1.0 

to allow the population to rapidly return to abundance target levels. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT identified six major spawning areas (MaSAs) and four minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the Klickitat population boundaries based on its historical intrinsic 

potential analysis. The analysis indicated that the upper mainstem Klickitat watershed 

was once a highly productive steelhead spawning area. 

In general, the ICTRT defined two goals, or biological or ecological objectives, that 

spatial structure and diversity criteria should achieve: 

• Maintaining natural rates and levels of spatially mediated processes. This goal 

serves (1) to minimize the likelihood that populations will be lost due to local 

catastrophe, (2) to maintain natural rates of recolonization within the population 

and between populations, and (3) to maintain other population functions that 

depend on the spatial arrangement of the population. 

• Maintaining natural patterns of variation. This goal serves to ensure that 

populations can withstand environmental variation in the short and long terms. 

(ICTRT 2007, p. 47). 

28
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Data on Klickitat steelhead are limited. The primary factors contributing the moderate 

risk designation in the ICTRT (2009) viability assessment were related to lack of 

information on: a) the population’s abundance and productivity, and, b) the effects of 

hatchery operations on the population. One of the primary goals of the Klickitat recovery 

plan is to attain the information needed to address these uncertainties. 

3.3 Threats Criteria 

Listing factors are those features that were evaluated under section 4(a)(1) when the 

initial determination was made to list the species for protection under the ESA. These 

may or may not still be limiting recovery when in the future NMFS reevaluates the status 

of the species to determine whether the protections of the ESA are no longer warranted 

and the species could be delisted. 

At the time of a delisting decision, NMFS will examine whether the section 4(a)(1) 

listing factors have been addressed. To assist in this examination, NMFS will use the 

listing factors (or threats) criteria described below in addition to evaluation of biological 

recovery criteria and other relevant data and policy considerations. 

To determine that the affected DPS is recovered to the point that it no longer requires the 

protections of the ESA, NMFS will review the status of the listing factors according to 

the specific criteria identified for each of them. The threats need to have been addressed 

to the point that delisting is not likely to result in their re-emergence. It is possible that 

current perceived threats will become insignificant in the future because of changes in the 

natural environment or changes in the way threats affect the entire life cycle of salmon. 

Consequently, NMFS expects that the ranking of threats will change over time and that 

new threats may be identified. During the status reviews, NMFS will evaluate and 

review the listing factor criteria under conditions at the time. 

The specific criteria listed below for each of the relevant listing/delisting factors helps to 

ensure that underlying causes of decline have been addressed and mitigated prior to 

considering a species for delisting. NMFS anticipates that if the proposed actions 

described in the Plan are implemented, they will make substantial progress toward 

meeting the following listing factor (threats) criteria: 

Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, threats to habitat should be addressed to a degree 

sufficient to support a viable Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS as outlined below: 

1. Impaired fish passage (e.g., dams and culverts) is addressed, either through removal 

or modification of obstructions, to improve survival and restore access to historically 

accessible habitat where necessary to support recovery goals. 

2. Flow conditions that support sufficient steelhead rearing, spawning, and migration of 

a viable DPS are achieved, where possible, through management of mainstem and 

29
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

tributary irrigation and hydropower operations, and through the improvement of other 

water user efficiencies and conservation, including for municipal supply and other 

consumptive purposes. 

3. Forest management practices that protect watershed and stream functions are 

implemented on Federal, state, tribal, and private lands. 

4. Agricultural practices, including grazing, are implemented to protect and restore 

riparian areas, floodplains, and stream channels, and to protect water quality from 

sediment, pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer runoff. 

5. Urban and rural development, including land use conversion from agriculture and 

forestland to residential uses, avoids impairment of water quality or impair natural 

stream conditions. 

6. The effects of toxic contaminants on salmonid fitness and survival in the mainstem 

and tributaries are sufficiently limited so as not to affect recovery. 

7. Channel function, including vegetated riparian areas, canopy cover, stream-bank 

stability, off-channel and side-channel habitats, natural substrate and sediment 

processes, and channel complexity is restored to provide adequate rearing and 

spawning habitat. 

8. Floodplain function and the availability of floodplain habitats for salmon are restored 

to a degree sufficient to support a viable DPS. This restoration should include 

connectivity between river and floodplain and the restoration of altered sediment 

routing. 

9. Water operations management in the mainstem and tributaries maximize survival of 

juvenile rearing, emigrating smolts, and immigrating and spawning adults. 

Factor B: Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational 

purposes 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any utilization for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes should be managed as outlined below: 

1. Fishery management plans for steelhead are in place that (a) accurately account for 

total fishery mortality (i.e., both landed catch and non-landed mortalities) and 

constrain mortality rates to levels that are consistent with achieving population 

viability (i.e., provide for adequate spawning escapement given their productivity); 

and (b) are implemented in such a way as to avoid deleterious genetic effects on 

populations or negatively affect the distribution of populations. 

2. Federal, state and tribal fishing rules and regulations are effectively enforced. 

3. Technical tools accurately assess the effects of the harvest regimes so that harvest 

objectives are met but not exceeded. 

4. Scientific handling of fish from adult and juvenile trapping operations is minimized to 

reduce indirect mortalities associated with education or scientific programs, while 

30
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

recognizing that monitoring, research, and education are key actions for conservation 

of the species. 

5. To the degree sufficient to support a viable DPS, routine instream construction and 

maintenance practices are implemented in a manner to reduce or eliminate mortality 

of listed species. 

Factor C: Disease or predation 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any disease or predation that threatens its 

continued existence should be addressed as outlined below: 

1. Hatchery operations do not subject steelhead populations to deleterious diseases and 

parasites and do not result in increased predation rates of wild steelhead. 

2. Predation by avian predators is managed in a way that promotes recovery of salmon 

and steelhead populations. 

3. The northern pikeminnow are managed to reduce predation on steelhead to a degree 

sufficient to meet recovery goals. 

4. Populations of introduced smallmouth bass, walleye, and catfish are managed such 

that competition or predation does not impede steelhead recovery. 

5. Predation by marine mammals on steelhead runs below Bonneville Dam is managed 

within the framework of applicable statutes and to the degree necessary to protect 

upstream migration of steelhead. 

Physiological stress and physical injury that may cause disease or increase susceptibility 

to pathogens during rearing or migration should be reduced during critical low flow 

periods (e.g. low water years) or poor passage conditions (e.g. at diversion dams or 

bypasses). 

Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, any inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms that threatens its continued existence should be addressed to the degree 

necessary to support a viable DPS, as outlined below: 

1. Sufficient resources, priorities, regulatory frameworks, and coordination mechanisms 

are established and/or maintained for effective enforcement of land and water use 

regulations that protect and restore habitats and for the effective management of 

fisheries. 

2. Habitat conditions and watershed functions are protected through land-use planning 

that guides human population growth and development. 

3. Habitat conditions and watershed function are protected through regulations that 

govern resource extraction such as timber harvest and gravel mining. 

31
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

4. Habitat conditions and watershed functions are protected through land protection 

agreements as appropriate, where existing policy or regulations do not provide 

adequate protection. 

5. Regulatory, control, and education measures to prevent additional exotic plant and 

animal species invasions are in place. 

Factor E: Other natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence 

To determine that the DPS is recovered, other natural and human-made threats to its 

continued existence should be addressed as outlined below: 

1. Steelhead hatchery programs are being operated in a manner that is consistent with 

individual watershed and region-wide recovery approaches; appropriate criteria 

should be used for the integration of hatchery steelhead populations and extant natural 

populations inhabiting watersheds where the hatchery fish return. 

2. Hatcheries operate using appropriate ecological, genetic, and demographic risk 

containment measures for (1) hatchery-origin adults returning to natural spawning 

areas, (2) release of hatchery juveniles, (3) handling of natural-origin adults at 

hatchery facilities, (4) withdrawal of water for hatchery use, (5) discharge of hatchery 

effluent, and (6) maintenance of fish health during their propagation in the hatchery. 

3. Mechanisms are in place to effectively continue monitoring the proportion of 

hatchery and wild spawners in the subbasin. 

4. Mechanisms are in place to reduce the incidence of, and impacts from, introduced, 

invasive, or exotic plant and animal species. 

5. Nutrient enrichment programs should be evaluated to determine where additional 

nutrient inputs can provide significant benefits. 

32
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

4. Current Status Assessment 

There are currently neither solid historical data nor accurate metrics for assessing current 

status of the Klickitat steelhead population. The first priority for recovery planning for 

this population is to reduce the uncertainties with a targeted monitoring program (see 

Chapter 6, Recovery Strategy and Actions, and Chapter 8, Monitoring, Research, and 

Adaptive Management). 

The ICTRT reviewed existing data, previous assessment findings and GIS analysis for its 

2005 viability assessment of the Klickitat population. This work has been updated by the 

ICTRT (2009). The Yakama Nation staff biologists provided substantial additional data, 

summarized in this chapter, which is, however, of a relatively short generational span and 

limited by significant uncertainties. 

The ICTRT viability assessment is presented first, followed by currently available status 

information from the Yakama Nation. Discussion is also provided of ICTRT, Yakama 

Nation, and Klickitat County findings regarding identification of major and minor 

spawning areas. 

4.1 ICTRT Status Assessment 

4.1.1 Major and Minor Spawning Areas 

The ICTRT identified major and minor spawning areas in the Klickitat system using 

model results that estimated the historical amount of potentially accessible spawning and 

rearing habitat available to the specific population based on stream width, gradient, and 

valley width from GIS-based analysis of tributary habitat associated with each population 

(ICTRT 2007). This historical intrinsic potential analysis conducted by the ICTRT 

identified six major spawning areas (MaSAs) and four minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 

within the Klickitat population boundaries (Figure 4-1). The ICTRT defines a major 

spawning area as a system of one or more branches that contains sufficient historical 

intrinsic habitat potential to support at least 500 spawners. This structure is typical of 

intermediate or large drainages. The ICTRT defines minor spawning areas as contiguous 

production areas capable of supporting between 50 and 500 spawners. The ICTRT does 

not consider any population fewer than 500 spawners to be viable, regardless of its 

intrinsic productivity (ICTRT 2007). 

Major spawning areas identified by the ICTRT in the Klickitat drainage are the Upper 

Mainstem Klickitat, White River, Upper Little Klickitat, Lower Mainstem Klickitat, 

Middle Mainstem Klickitat and West Fork Klickitat MaSAs. Minor spawning areas are 

the Swale Creek, Lower Little Klickitat, Trout Creek and Surveyors Creek MiSAs. 

Middle Columbia steelhead occupy all major spawning areas in the Klickitat drainage 

with the exception of the West Fork Klickitat MaSA. 

33
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

There is a high degree of correlation between the assessment areas used in the Klickitat 

River subbasin plan (NPCC 2004) and the areas identified using the ICTRT intrinsic 

potential analysis. In addition, the ICTRT analysis was modified based on input from 

regional biologists to identify reaches in the Little Klickitat drainage and MaSAs that are 

inaccessible under some annual flow conditions. 

Yakama Nation Fisheries staff noted that several tributaries identified by the ICTRT as 

having high intrinsic habitat potential differ in various aspects from Yakama Nation 

resource specialists’ understanding of the areas (see Figure 4-2). For example, there are 

discrepancies between a few headwater tributaries such as Sheep and Blue creeks. 

Sections of Swale, Big Muddy, and Hellroaring creeks, upper Knight and Wide Sky 

canyons and other creeks are included by the ICTRT as having segments of high intrinsic 

historical potential for steelhead spawning habitat, although Yakama Nation staff 

consider it highly improbable that the segments were even historically conducive to 

spawning, because of geomorphological and biotic factors. Yakama Nation staff also 

contend that historical spawning distribution of steelhead in Trout Creek and the Little 

Klickitat River was unlikely to have extended as far upstream as the ICTRT’s GIS model 

indicates. The Yakama Nation Fisheries staff delineated 11 spawning areas in the 

Klickitat watershed, based on EDT analysis, that they believe better reflect spawning 

habitat areas for the steelhead population. Appendix III discusses these areas and 

compares them to the areas identified by the ICTRT. 

Klickitat County staff agree that the distribution of steelhead in the Little Klickitat is 

unlikely to extend as far upstream as the ICTRT’s GIS model indicates. They believe 

that fish distribution in the Little Klickitat stops at the falls at RM 6.1, except in rare 

years when some minor passage may occur under certain unusual flow conditions. They 

note that the ICTRT’s estimate of fish distribution in Swale Creek is also overrepresented, and that during summer and fall steelhead are found only in the lower three 

miles where there is water (WPN and Aspect 2005a). 

Despite these differences between GIS data and hardcopy maps, the basic patterns of 

predicted and observed occupancy of the subbasin are similar. Because the intrinsic 

potential model incorporates broad scale landscape and hydrological variables, subbasin 

specific characteristics often cause local differences between observations, professional 

knowledge, and modeled predictions of pre-development habitat conditions. However, 

using the ICTRT’s habitat branching and MaSA/MiSA accumulation methods, these 

disparities are generally insignificant at the MaSA/MiSA scale. Many of the tributaries 

mentioned above contain well below one percent of the total intrinsic habitat modeled 

within the Klickitat population. 

34
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Figure 4-1. Klickitat River Steelhead population boundary and historical major 

and minor spawning areas (ICTRT 2007).

4.1.2 Abundance and Productivity 

The ICTRT (2009) found that annual estimates of the total number of steelhead spawning 

in the Klickitat River drainage prior to the 2005-2006 return year have not been 

generated. Redd surveys of steelhead spawning in the Klickitat River drainage have been 

conducted in recent years, but there is insufficient coverage to allow for directly 

estimating annual abundance from those samples. 

Separate estimates of the escapement of hatchery-origin and natural-origin steelhead past 

Lyle Falls have been generated for the 2005-2006 return year using mark-recapture 

methods (Gray 2007). An estimated 1,577 natural-origin and 1,833 hatchery-origin adult 

steelhead were estimated to have passed above Lyle Falls and the associated tribal fishery 

in that return year. Returns to the Klickitat River include hatchery-origin adults from 

annual out-plants of Skamania Hatchery summer steelhead from North Fork Washougal 

River broodstock (approximately 100,000 smolts per year) into the middle sections of the 

mainstem Klickitat River. A hatchery-directed sport fishery has harvested an estimated 

1,400 to 3,700 fish per year between 2000 and 2004 

(http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/papers/steelhead/m_col_esu.pdf). The estimated returns above 

Lyle Falls would be reduced by hatchery sport harvest (direct catch of hatchery, 

35
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

incidental mortalities of natural-origin fish), potential fall back and any pre-spawning 

mortalities. 

Assuming that annual estimates of the number of steelhead passing Lyle Falls continue to 

be generated, after a sufficient number of estimates are accumulated, it may be possible 

to use a derived relationship between index area redd counts and total abundance to 

extend annual estimates back using the recent historical redd counts. 

Determining the relative distribution of hatchery and natural-origin spawners on the 

spawning grounds would reduce uncertainty with generating productivity estimates from 

the return series. Estimated abundance and harvest data provided by the Yakama Nation 

are included as Appendix IV. 

The ICTRT was able to assign a size category to the Klickitat steelhead population based 

on historical intrinsic potential analysis. Size categories reflect drainage complexity and 

the distribution of current and historical spawning habitat. Upstream limits on the 

potential use of tributary habitat for spawning and rearing were defined in terms of 

physical barriers, stream gradient, width, and water temperature, on the basis of multiple 

sources, including GIS data, published accounts, field personnel, and local expert review. 

The ICTRT considers the Klickitat River population to be an “intermediate” sized 

population. To be considered viable, i.e. having a 5 percent or less risk of extinction over 

a 100-year timeframe, an intermediate-sized population should have a mean minimum 

abundance of 1,000 naturally produced spawners. 

Because of insufficient data and the uncertainties regarding naturally occurring 

production, the ICTRT provisionally assigned the Klickitat River population Moderate 

risk for abundance and productivity (ICTRT 2007). 

4.1.3 Spatial Structure and Diversity

Current steelhead spawning in the Klickitat mainstem is concentrated between RM 5 and 

RM 50, with occasional spawning above Castile Falls (RM 64). Figure 4-2 shows current 

steelhead distribution in the Klickitat subbasin, with areas of “limited access,” as inferred 

based on restrictions in passage conditions, represented by dashed lines. Tributary 

spawning currently occurs in the White Creek watershed (including Tepee and Brush 

creeks), Dead Canyon, Swale Canyon, Wheeler, Summit, and lower Bowman creeks, the 

lower (and occasionally upper) Little Klickitat River, and other smaller tributaries. 

Winter steelhead are believed to spawn between the confluence of the Klickitat with the 

Columbia River and the confluence of the Little Klickitat with the mainstem (Howell et 

al. 1985). Further research on spawning distribution of winter steelhead in the Klickitat 

subbasin is needed. Steelhead distribution, however, is expected to extend into the upper 

watershed in the near future because passage for anadromous fish at Castile Falls has 

recently been restored and the upper subbasin is now re-connected. 

36
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Figure 4-2. Summer and Winter Steelhead Distribution in the Klickitat Subbasin (NPCC 

2004). 

Based on its historical intrinsic potential analysis, the ICTRT identified six major 

spawning areas (MaSAs) (systems of one or more branches capable of supporting 500 

spawners), and four minor spawning areas (MiSAs) (able to support between 50 and 500 

spawners) within the Klickitat population boundaries (ICTRT 2007) (Table 4-1 and 

Figure 4-3). The analysis assumed that the upper mainstem Klickitat watershed was once 

a highly productive steelhead spawning area. 

37
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table 4-1. Klickitat Summer/Winter Steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic potential 

analysis summary (ICTRT 2009). 

Drainage Area (km2) 3,632 

Stream lengths kma (total) 2,590 

Stream lengths kma (below natural barriers) 1,701 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 2.978 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited)b 2.978 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 3.990 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limitedb 3.990 

Size and Complexity category Intermediate / B (dendritic) 

Number of MaSAs 6 

Number of MiSAs 4 a

All stream segments greater than or equal to 3.8m bankfull width were included 

b

Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area with mean weekly modeled water temperature greater than 22oC 

Figure 4-3. Percentage of Historical Spawning Habitat by Major/Minor Spawning Area. (ICTRT 

2009).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Surveyors

Trout

Low er Little Klickitat

Sw ale

West Fork Klickitat

Middle Mainstem

Low er Mainstem

Upper Little Klickitat

White

Upper Mainstem

Percentage of population

MiSAs

MaSAs

Genetic samples from different areas within the Klickitat River system cluster together 

but appear to be relatively homogeneous. Compared to other populations, the Klickitat 

subpopulation samples cluster together. The closest association is with the Skamania 

Hatchery stock; the level of differentiation suggests a common origin. The ICTRT rated 

the Klickitat steelhead population as at Moderate risk for this metric (ICTRT 2009). 

The ICTRT rated the Klickitat River steelhead population at Moderate risk for spatial 

structure and diversity based on an assessment of the cumulative scores across the 

individual spatial structure/diversity factors and metrics (Table 4-2). It determined that 

reducing the spatial structure/diversity risk to a low rating would require reducing the 

impacts of the outside stock hatchery program on natural spawning areas, or determining 

that the natural population is actually experiencing very little impact from the Skamania 

stock origin returns. 

38
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table 4-2 summarizes ICTRT viability assessment results for Klickitat steelhead 

population spatial structure and diversity factors and metrics. Table 4-3 shows the 

ICTRT’s spatial structure and diversity scoring table for the population. 

Table 4-2. ICTRT viability assessment results for Klickitat steelhead population spatial structure and 

diversity factors and metrics (ICTRT 2009). 

Factors and Metrics Risk Rating ICTRT Comments 

A.1.a. Number and spatial 

arrangement of spawning 

areas. 

Low All six of MaSAs inferred as occupied based on the WDFW and YN data. More data 

needed to confirm current distribution information. 

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range 

of population. 

Low Intrinsic potential approach assumes that steelhead had access to the upper Klickitat 

(mainstem and tributaries above Castile Falls) and the upper sections of the Little 

Klickitat River. Historical access to the upper Klickitat may have been limited by Castile 

Falls. WDFW and YN data indicate that all MaSAs and MiSAs are currently occupied. 

Distributions should be confirmed through systematic ground surveys. 

A.1.c. Increase or decrease 

in gaps or continuities 

between spawning areas 

Low The WDFW current distributions and the YN redd survey data sets indicate that the 

lower most MaSAs are at least partially occupied and there is a presence of steelhead 

spawners in the MiSAs below the Little Klickitat River. There are no intervening gaps 

among the occupied MaSAs in the Klickitat. 

B.1.a. Major life history 

strategies 

Low There is no evidence of loss of a major juvenile life history pattern. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation. Moderate It is possible that continual inputs of outside hatchery-origin spawners (Skamania stock) 

have altered spawning timing and other phenotypic characteristics of the native run. 

Rating is precautionary given absence of more specific information on the relative 

contributions of hatchery spawners to natural spawners. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation. Moderate Genetic samples from different areas within the Klickitat River system cluster together 

but appear to be relatively homogeneous. Compared to other populations, the Klickitat 

subpopulation samples cluster together. The closest association is with the Skamania 

Hatchery stock; the level of differentiation suggests a common origin. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition. High No systematic sampling studies have been done to determine the relative contribution of 

returns from the hatchery releases in the Klickitat to natural spawning areas. The only 

reported information on relative hatchery wild composition for the Klickitat are results of 

sport catch sampling efforts in the late 1980s, indicating that up to 2/3 of the catch were 

hatchery-origin. It is possible that those estimates reflect the contribution rates in the 

lower Klickitat and are not directly representative of hatchery contribution rates to 

spawning in the majority of natural production areas. Based on release levels and sport 

catch estimates, it is very likely that the hatchery contribution rate to natural spawning 

has exceeded 5 percent for more than 4 generations. Rating reflects the absence of 

direct information confirming differential spawning distribution of hatchery and natural 

fish and/or information on relative contribution rates to natural spawning areas. 

B.3.a. Distribution of 

population across habitat 

types 

Low Current spawning distribution (WDFW GIS layer and YN fisheries redd survey results) 

indicates occupied MaSAs cover three of the four historical regions. Current and 

historical ecoregion ratios need to be checked (specifically the relative contribution of 

the Grand Fir Mixed Forest). 

B.4.a. Selective change in 

natural processes or 

selective impacts. 

Low Low risk estimates given across the four sectors: hydropower system, harvest, 

hatcheries, habitat. 

39
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table 4-3. Spatial Structure and Diversity Scoring Table: Klickitat Steelhead Population (ICTRT 

2009). 

Metric Risk Assessment Scores 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a L (1) L (1) 

Mean = 1.25 Low 

Risk Low Risk 

Moderate Risk 

A.1.b L (1) L (1) 

A.1.c L (1) L (1) 

B.1.a L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk 

Moderate Risk 

B.1.b M (0) M (0) 

B.1.c M (0) M (0) 

B.2.a(1) H (-1) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.2.a(2) NA 

B.2.a(3) NA 

B.2.a(4) NA 

B.3.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

4.1.4 Overall Risk Rating

The ICTRT rated the Klickitat River steelhead population at Moderate risk of extinction 

in one hundred years for both abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity. 

Thus, the population does not meet the criteria for a viable population as defined by the 

ICTRT (ICTRT 2007). Figure 4-4 is a matrix that illustrates the combinations of risk 

levels for all four VSP parameters that define low, moderate, and high risk ratings for a 

population or DPS. “Viable” status is defined as having no more than a 5 percent 

likelihood of extinction within 100 years. Moderate risk corresponds to “maintained” 

status, which designates a population that can contribute to overall DPS viability by 

providing ecological functions and preserving options for recovery. Maintained 

populations can serve as buffers against catastrophic losses to other, more viable 

populations and/or uncertainty in the ICTRT population and MPG criteria. Ensuring that 

the less than viable populations meet maintained standards reduces the risk for the MPG. 

However, as previously noted, the Klickitat population has characteristics that are 

sufficiently important to the DPS to make it an appropriate candidate for viable status. 

The ICTRT noted that developing a method for generating annual estimates of natural 

contributions to spawning in the Klickitat would allow for a more accurate assessment of 

both abundance and productivity. With respect to spatial structure and diversity, the 

population would benefit from actions that promote or confirm a high level of separation 

between hatchery-origin spawners and natural production. More detailed evaluations of 

40
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

genetic patterns within the population, and of the range of life history variations present 

in the population, could also contribute to improving the status level assigned through 

application of the ICTRT criteria. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

Very Low Low Moderate High 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

Very Low (<1%) HV HV V M 

Low (1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M 

M 

Klickitat 

River* 

HR 

High (>25%) HR HR HR HR 

Figure 4-4. Viable Salmonid Population Parameter Risk Ratings for the Klickitat River Steelhead 

Salmon Population (ICTRT 2009). Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR 

– High Risk; * = Candidate for Maintained; Shaded cells – does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells 

are at greatest risk).

 

41
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

5. Limiting Factors and Threats 

The reasons for a species’ decline are generally described in terms of limiting factors and 

threats. Analysis of limiting factors and threats across the entire species’ life cycle forms 

the basis for designing recovery strategies and actions. NMFS defines limiting factors as 

the biological and physical conditions limiting DPS and population status (e.g. elevated 

water temperature), and defines threats as those human activities or naturally induced 

actions that cause the limiting factors (e.g. removal of riparian vegetation for agricultural 

or residential purposes, which causes loss of shade and, consequently, elevated water 

temperature). 

While the term “threats” carries a negative connotation, it does not mean that activities 

identified as threats are inherently undesirable. They are often legitimate human activities 

that may at times have unintended negative consequences on fish populations—and that 

can usually be managed in a manner that minimizes or eliminates the negative impacts. 

For steelhead and other salmonids, survival to reproduce depends on a complex, 

interacting system of environmental conditions, with different conditions needed for each 

life stage. Optimal water temperature, for example, varies (within limits) for adult 

migration vs. egg incubation or juvenile rearing. In addition, the particular factors 

limiting production may vary across different sections of the tributary drainage used by a 

particular population. Data on a full range of potential limiting factors is rarely available 

at the reach level. As a result, the identification of limiting factors for salmonids often 

includes elements based on inference and expert opinion. 

The list of potential limiting factors for the Klickitat steelhead population, as for the other 

populations that make up the DPS, is based on a substantial body of research on 

salmonids, local field data and field observations, and the considered opinions of regional 

experts. These are implicitly hypothetical statements, made with the expectation that by 

taking action in the face of some degree of scientific uncertainty, monitoring the results, 

continuing to conduct research as a high priority, and adapting our management actions 

in response, the state of our knowledge will improve and so will the survival of these fish, 

although not necessarily in a directly parallel process. In that spirit, this chapter describes 

the factors, based on the best available science, considered to be limiting Middle 

Columbia River steelhead production in the Klickitat subbasin. 

5.1 Hatchery Effects 

Uncertainty regarding the effects of hatchery releases on the naturally spawning 

population is one of the two primary reasons the ICTRT rated the Klickitat steelhead 

population as at moderate risk (the other factor is the lack of information regarding 

abundance) (ICTRT 2009). Hatchery releases and interactions between hatchery and wild 

fish are likely to have a significant impact on the viability and productivity of the 

naturally spawning population. 

42
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Hatchery-bred smolts from the Skamania and Vancouver hatcheries have been released 

into the Klickitat River for nearly 40 years. Releases were also made from the Beaver 

Creek and Naches hatcheries. Releases have averaged approximately 102,000 smolts 

annually since 1982, ranging from 16,000 smolts in 1995 to 118,500 smolts in 2000. The 

current hatchery steelhead production goal for the Klickitat subbasin is an annual release 

of 120,000 summer-run steelhead from Skamania and Vancouver hatcheries directly into 

the Klickitat River. Both hatcheries use Skamania Hatchery broodstock, which is 

maintained using steelhead returning to the Skamania Hatchery on the Washougal River. 

The broodstock for the program was originally established with wild fish taken from both 

the Washougal and Klickitat River systems. To limit adverse interactions with naturally 

produced juvenile steelhead, hatchery summer steelhead are released at times and sizes 

that result in rapid emigration from the subbasin. The releases occur in the mainstem 

Klickitat River below the primary upstream spawning and rearing areas. 

Skamania summer steelhead releases in the Klickitat River mainly provide for sport 

fisheries in the river (Bosch et al. 2004). Hatchery-reared winter steelhead have never 

been released in the Klickitat subbasin (Sharp 2000). 

Currently there is insufficient information to determine the effects of hatchery releases on 

the natural steelhead population. While it is likely that hatchery hybridization of 

Skamania stock with wild steelhead has occurred in the Klickitat subbasin (NPCC 2004), 

the level of impact on the natural population remains uncertain. In its recent viability 

assessment for the population, the ICTRT (2007) found that the only reported 

information on relative hatchery/wild composition for the Klickitat was from sport catch 

sampling in the late 1980s, indicating that up to two-thirds of the catch were hatcheryorigin. The ICTRT noted that it is possible that those estimates reflect the contribution 

rates in the lower Klickitat and are not directly representative of hatchery contribution 

rates to spawning in the majority of natural production areas. However, based on release 

levels and sport catch estimates, the ICTRT found that it is very likely that the hatchery 

contribution rate to natural steelhead spawning in the Klickitat subbasin has exceeded 5 

percent for more than four generations (ICTRT 2007). Updated information from Gray 

(2005) indicates that 47.6 percent of the returning fish were hatchery-origin, based on the 

number of fish passing through the Lyle fish trap between July 2004 and February 2005. 

The percentage of hatchery-origin steelhead that passed through the fish trap in 2007, 

2008, and 2009 ranged from 55.4 to 67.0 (http://www.ykfp.org/klickitat/). 

Narum et al. (2006) argued that only 4 percent of the naturally produced steelhead could 

be attributed to the hatchery stock, and that genetic integrity and variation of native 

Klickitat River steelhead have been maintained despite repeated hatchery introductions. 

Berejikian and Ford (2004) estimated that the non-local Skamania Hatchery summer 

steelhead are less than 30 percent as effective as the naturally produced steelhead in 

producing returning adults. 

Hatchery releases of coho and spring and fall Chinook into the mainstem Klickitat River 

may also affect natural steelhead production. In addition to the steelhead hatchery 

43
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

releases, an average of 4,349,710 fall Chinook, 595,318 spring Chinook, and 3,714,083 

coho are released into the Klickitat River each year (Sharp et al. 2008). These species are 

not native, but have naturalized in the basin and are known to spawn in relatively large 

numbers (Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and 

Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009). 

A synthesis of many studies in other basins by Weber and Fausch (2003) indicates that 

competition from hatchery outplants has the potential to decrease the productivity of the 

rearing life stages and increase predation on wild juvenile steelhead; however, the effects 

of the introduction of coho and fall Chinook on steelhead production in the Klickitat 

River have not been evaluated. It is believed that the current release of 3.7 million coho 

from the hatchery downstream into the middle mainstem Klickitat River may be 

competing with, and preying on listed steelhead juveniles (Sharp et al. 2008). The 

Klickitat Master Plan (Sharp et al. 2008) proposes to reduce the annual coho releases to 

1.0 million and move all releases downstream to the proposed Wahkiacus Hatchery and 

Acclimation Facility. Hatchery releases of juvenile fall Chinook are not expected to 

compete with listed steelhead because of different habitat preferences; however, they may 

compete with naturally produced spring Chinook (Sharp et al. 2008). 

Table 5-1. Results of redd surveys completed by Yakama Nation Fisheries in the Klickitat basin, 2002 

through 2007 (Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 

2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009). 

Year Species Miles 

Surveyed # Redds1 Redds/Mile # Live Spawners # Morts 

2002 Spring Chinook 58.1 389 6.7 248

158

Fall Chinook 48.6 1225 25.2 1655 1133

Coho 67.2 480 7.1 1781 384

Steelhead 127.6 26

1

2.0 150 17

2003 Spring Chinook 58.1 332 5.7 2

1

3

50

Fall Chinook 40.6 474 11.7 1423 1258

Coho 53.8 112 2.1 424

149

Steelhead 120.1 290 2.4 124 16

2004 Spring Chinook 70.8 195 2.8 222 57

Fall Chinook 48.7 777 16.0 1404

776

Coho 53.9 57 1.1 404 19

Steelhead 142.8 220 1.5 141 6

2005 Spring Chinook 68.2

50 0.7 98 0

44
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Year Species Miles 

Surveyed 

# Live # Redds1 Redds/Mile # Morts Spawners 

Fall Chinook 48.7 505 10.4 1466 243

Coho 40.5 0 0.0 114 21

Steelhead 146.3 157 1.1 288 2

2006 Spring Chinook 68.2 82 1.2 68 11

Fall Chinook 36.9 119 3.2 684 286

Coho

40.5

1 0.0 218 45

Steelhead 123.8 10 0.1 23 3

2007 Spring Chinook 61.2 104 1.7 70 18

Fall Chinook 48.8 253 5.2 557

62

Coho 56 190 3.4 1499 133

Steelhead 135.3 67 0.5 50 8

1 The number of redds is not directly comparable between species since differences in flows affect 

the efficiency of the surveys. 

Straying of out-of-subbasin hatchery-produced steelhead, primarily from the Snake River 

and Upper Columbia River, into the Klickitat subbasin may also affect the viability of the 

Klickitat steelhead population. These strays are believed to enter the Klickitat to flee 

higher temperatures in the mainstem Columbia for cooler water refuges (Keefer et al. 

2002). Juvenile transportation, artificial rearing, early run timing, and multiple fallbacks/ 

re-ascensions at dams also seem to be related to increased incidence of straying behavior 

(Keefer et al. 2005). Permanent strays, as opposed to “dip-ins” in the non-natal tributary, 

compete with endangered native fish. Out-of-subbasin spawning by hatchery fish can 

directly harm local wild populations (Waples et al. 1991; Chilcote 2003). Intra-basin 

stray rates for hatchery steelhead into Columbia River tributaries may be as high as 6.8 

percent (Keefer et al. 2005). 

5.2. Freshwater Habitat 

The following discussion summarizes what is known and hypothesized regarding 

potential limiting factors based on best available information for each major and minor 

spawning area (MaSA and MiSA) identified by the ICTRT. Information used to identify 

these factors and the potentially associated threats came from available data reports and 

analyses for the basin, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 2004 subbasin 

planning process, the Klickitat Lead Entity process performed under the Washington 

State Salmon Recovery Planning process, SB2496, a Yakama Nation 2006 EDT model 

run incorporating major spawning areas (unpublished), and the watershed planning 

process, chapter 90.82 RCW. 

As described in more detail in Section 2.3, Ecosystem Conditions, and Appendix II, the 

Klickitat watershed offers areas of good quality habitat for steelhead as well as areas of 

degraded riparian condition, decreased floodplain function, altered hydrology, degraded 

channel structure and complexity, fish migration barriers, increased sediment loads, and 

degraded water quality, particularly with respect to high summer temperatures. 

45
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

5.2.1 Major Spawning Areas 

The ICTRT identified the following six major spawning areas in the Klickitat drainage, 

all of which are occupied by Middle Columbia steelhead except the West Fork Klickitat 

MaSA. 

Upper Mainstem Major Spawning Area 

As identified by the ICTRT, the Upper Mainstem MaSA contains the Klickitat River 

mainstem from the confluence with the West Fork Klickitat to the headwaters, including 

McCreedy, Chaparral, Piscoe, Diamond Fork, Butte Meadows, Coyote creeks and 

Huckleberry Creek below the falls. All but a small section of the Upper Mainstem 

Klickitat MaSA is above Castile Falls. 

Potential limiting factors: Impaired fish passage, altered sediment routing, degraded 

water quality (temperature), degraded channel structure and complexity, habitat quality 

and quantity, altered hydrology, competition, harassment/poaching. 

Steelhead recently regained access to historical habitat above Castile Falls after the 

fishway was modified to allow fish passage over a wider range of river flow conditions. 

There is historical evidence (from Yakama Nation Tribal Elders) of steelhead above 

Castile Falls. Historically, the difficult passage over the falls probably limited the 

number of fish using upstream habitat. Based on fish surveys and interviews with Tribal 

fishermen, LeMeir et al. (1957) identified only resident trout upstream of Castile Falls. 

While it is believed that the falls has always impeded upstream passage of adult fish, a 

1960s attempt to improve fish passage at the falls inadvertently obstructed nearly all 

migration to habitat above the fishway. The recently completed fishway modifications 

resolved this problem. In addition to the falls, at least three culverts in Piscoe Creek have 

been identified as barriers to upstream juvenile and resident fish passage, according to 

WDFW protocols (Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003). 

The Yakama Nation has monitored sediment levels at 20 sites in the Klickitat basin 

(http://www.ykfp.org/klickitat/Data_SedRpts.htm; Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama 

Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; 

Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009). Reported fine sediment (<0.85 mm) levels in the 

creek are less than 20 percent (a widely used indicator of spawning gravel condition: 

gravels that contain fewer than 20 percent fines are considered to be reasonably healthy 

for salmonids) in all mainstem sample locations in the Upper Mainstem Klickitat MaSA 

(Table 5-2). 

Stream temperatures in the Upper Mainstem Klickitat MaSA frequently exceed 16o C in 

summer but rarely reach lethal temperatures (Table 5-3). 

(http://www.ykfp.org/klickitat/Data_SedRpts.htm; Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama 

Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; 

Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009). Temperatures above 22o C (72o F) are highly 

stressful for steelhead but not necessarily lethal. According to Washington State Water 

46
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Quality Standards, Class A waters should not exceed 22o C, and Class AA water summer 

temperatures should not exceed 62.3o F. 

Table 5-2. Fine sediment concentrations in gravels in the major and minor spawning areas in the 

Klickitat basin (data source: Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003; 

Zendt and Evenson 21005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009. 

MaSA/MiSA Location Years Sampled 

Average % 

fine sediment 

(<0.85mm) in 

spawning 

gravel 

Average % fine 

sediment 

(<6.73mm) in 

spawning gravel 

West Fork 

Klickitat

West Fork Klickitat near 

the 255 road

1999 14.3 33.8

Upper 

Mainstem 

Klickitat

Klickitat near Signal Park 

Bridge

1999, 2001-2002 11.4 26.1

Klickitat near Parrot’s 

Crossing

1999-2000, 2002-

2007

13.9 32.0

Klickitat near Hatchery 1999 49.3 60.8

White Creek Teepee Creek below IXL 

Road Crossing

2006 21.1 45.0

White Creek below Teepee 

Creek

2005-2006 19.8 38.5

Middle 

Mainstem

Klickitat below White 

Creek

1999-2007 12.2 31.1

Klickitat near Leidl Bridge 1998, 2000, 

2003-2007

11.1 26.1

Klickitat near Stinson 1999-2000, 2002-

2006

13.2 28.2

Lower 

Mainstem 

Klickitat 

Klickitat below Little 

Klickitat

1999-2007 14.1 28.9

Klickitat below Swale 

Creek

1999-2000, 2003-

2006

13.8 35.3

Upper Little 

Klickitat 

East Prong 1999-2000 15 30.3

Three Creeks 1999 23.0 37.1

Goldendale 2000 11.9 18.6

 

Table 5-3. Maximum recorded temperature, average annual number of days that temperature 

exceeds 16o

C, and average annual number of days that temperature exceeds 22oC in the major and 

minor spawning areas in the Klickitat basin (data source: Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation 

Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 21005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt 

and Babcock 2009. 

MaSA/MiSA Location Years Sampled Max 

Temperature 

Average 

Annual # 

Days > 16oC 

Average 

Annual # 

Days >22oC 

West Fork 

Klickitat At 255 Bridge 1997-2007 14.1 0 0

Surveyor’s 

Creek

Surveyor’s Creek 

Road Crossing 1996-2007 22.4 4.1 0.1

Trout Creek At River Rte Rd 1997-2007 25.6 65.1 9.5

47
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

MaSA/MiSA Location Years Sampled Max 

Temperature 

Average Average 

Annual # Annual # 

Days > 16oC Days >22oC 

Crossing

White 

Creek

Teepee Creek at 

IXL Rd Crossing 2003-2007 25.3 116 0.4

White Creek at 

IXL Rd Crossing 2003-2007 23.5 21.4 1.4 

Near Mouth 1996-2007 27.7 81.5 11.1 

Lower 

Little 

Klickitat 

Near Confluence 

with Klickitat 1997-2007 25.6 65.5 9.8 

Upper Little 

Klickitat 

Three Creeks 1996-2007 26.7 59.6 10.9 

Owen Road 1996-2005 29.8 88.4 42.8 

Lower 

Klickitat 

Mainstem 

Near Little 

Klickitat 2001-2007 22.8 42.5 0.3 

At Old Lyle Trap 

Site 1997-2001 20.5 22.6 0.2 

At New Lyle Trap 

Site 2003-2004 20.9 47 0 

Swale 

Creek 

At Harms Rd 1997-2003 32.3 78.1 27.4 

Near Mouth 1997-2004 31.9 45.4 29.1 

Threats in the Upper Mainstem MaSA are primarily the continued use and construction 

of roads, continued timber harvest in riparian areas, off-road vehicle use, and grazing. 

Timber harvest in this area on state and privately owned timberlands is subject to the 

Washington State Forest Practices rules, while harvest on the Yakama Reservation lands 

is governed by the Yakama Nation Forest Management Plan for 2005-2014. Future 

development in the upper portion of the Diamond Fork may affect habitat, depending on 

the use in that area, locations of development, and construction methods employed. 

White Creek Major Spawning Area 

The White Creek MaSA includes White Creek, Brush Creek, Tepee Creek, West Fork 

White Creek, and unnamed NW (White), E, NE and SE (Tepee) tributaries. 

Potential limiting factors: flow, habitat quality and quantity, impaired fish passage, 

altered sediment routing, degraded water quality (temperature), competition, degraded 

channel structure and complexity. 

The White Creek watershed (138 sq. miles), including Teepee Creek, supports a 

substantial portion of total observed steelhead spawning within the surveyed areas of the 

Klickitat subbasin (Evenson et al. 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt 

and Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009). 

Fine sediment (<0.85 mm) levels in the White Creek exceed 20 percent in some areas 

(Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 

2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009) (Table 5-2). 

48
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Stream temperatures in the White Creek basin frequently exceed 16oC in summer. Lethal 

or near-lethal temperatures occur rarely at the upper temperature monitoring sites, but 

exceed 22oC an average 11.1 days per year at the mouth (Table 5-3) 

(http://www.ykfp.org/klickitat/Data_SedRpts.htm; Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama 

Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; 

Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009). 

Current habitat conditions in the White Creek watershed reflect past land use, particularly 

overgrazing, riparian timber harvest and road construction throughout the watershed. 

Instream large woody debris levels are low in many reaches and base flows are very low 

to non-existent in many reaches. Due to inhospitable flow and truncated flow duration in 

the vicinity of many spawning areas, post-emergence movement by steelhead fry and 

migration by juveniles is critical to their survival. Extensive reaches of both White and 

Tepee creeks have become incised and flow is now intermittent in many places where 

anecdotal evidence suggests it was once perennial. 

Changes in channel morphology are related to livestock grazing, road interactions, and in 

some locations, historical removal of LWD. Impacts from grazing (in the form of altered 

riparian vegetation, bank erosion, and channel incision) are ongoing and evident in 

several meadow reaches within the watershed. At least seven culverts within the MaSA 

block upstream migration to spawning and rearing habitat ─ primarily for juveniles and 

residents, but also for some adults at some flows. 

Much of Tepee Creek and portions of White and Brush creeks are highly incised with 

high, sparsely vegetated, eroding banks. The incision restricts floodplain access and has 

resulted in a higher-energy stream environment in which bed and bank erosion are 

common and habitat conditions are poor. Road inventory and analysis of watershed 

hydrology in the upper Tepee and White Creek watersheds indicated a marked increase in 

peak discharge (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 2003). 

LWD and pool frequency are very low (Conley 2005). Known historical failures of road 

crossings likely contributed to debris torrents which exacerbated downcutting of the 

channel bed, loss of LWD, reduced in-channel complexity and connectivity, and 

accelerated the export of spawning gravel. Spawning gravel and areas of velocity refugia 

are also limited. 

Middle Mainstem Major Spawning Area 

The Middle Mainstem MaSA contains the Klickitat River mainstem from the Little 

Klickitat River to the confluence with White Creek and includes Summit Creek, Beeks 

Canyon, and Dead Canyon. 

Potential limiting factors: altered sediment routing, habitat quality and quantity, 

degraded water quality (temperature), harassment/poaching, flow, predation, 

competition with hatchery fish, degraded channel structure and complexity, impaired fish 

passage. 

49
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

The middle mainstem Klickitat River MaSA supports over half of the observed mainstem 

steelhead spawning (Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003; 

Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 

2009), and has some of the greatest channel complexity. It also serves as the migration 

and rearing corridor for steelhead accessing upper reaches in the subbasin. 

Large numbers of hatchery produced spring Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, coho 

salmon and summer steelhead are released from the Klickitat Hatchery directly into the 

river within this MaSA (Sharp et al. 2008). These hatchery releases likely compete for 

food and rearing space with naturally produced steelhead. This area is also used 

extensively by the naturally spawning introduced fall Chinook and coho (Evenson and 

Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt 

and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009), which also compete for food 

and rearing space. 

Much of the middle mainstem Klickitat River is located in or adjacent to the Klickitat 

Wildlife Area. The right of way for the haul road paralleling the Klickitat River’s west 

bank has been acquired by Columbia Land Trust. There is very little development and 

few roads in the unit. Some grazing occurs in the area. Logging occurs in the 

headwaters. As indicated in Section 2.3.2 of this Plan, the Big Muddy and Little Muddy 

creeks and West Fork Klickitat transport substantial quantities of sediment from a natural 

source to the Klickitat River above this MaSA. Logging-related impacts upstream of the 

MaSA might also be a source of sediment in the middle mainstem Klickitat River. 

However, available data suggest that fine sediment (<0.85 mm) levels in the spawning 

gravels in the mainstem Klickitat portion of the MaSA are reasonably low, below 20 

percent fine sediment (Table 5-2) ( Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries 

Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt 

and Babcock 2009). No data on stream flow, water temperatures, or levels of sediment in 

spawning gravels are available for Summit Creek, Beeks Canyon, or Dead Canyon. 

Lower Mainstem Major Spawning Area 

The Lower Mainstem MaSA extends from the mouth of the Klickitat River to the Little 

Klickitat River (RM 20.2) and includes Snyder Canyon, Dillacort, Wheeler and Logging 

Camp creeks. Lyle Falls (RM 2.19) restricts upstream passage to a degree. 

Potential limiting factors: habitat quality and quantity, competition, degraded water 

quality (temperature), altered sediment routing, predation, hatchery-related adverse 

effects, impaired fish passage, degraded channel structure and complexity, withdrawals, 

altered hydrology, harassment/poaching. 

The Lower Mainstem MaSA provides a migration and/or rearing corridor for 100 percent 

of steelhead, spring and fall Chinook, and coho in the Klickitat subbasin. The town of 

Klickitat is located near the upper end of the Lower Mainstem MaSA. A railroad and 

Highway 142 parallel the river along much of its length within the MaSA. The lower 

portion of the MaSA passes through a steep-sided bedrock canyon. Lyle Falls is located 

50
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

near the lower end of the MaSA. The falls historically impeded passage for spring 

Chinook and steelhead, but prevented passage for fall Chinook and coho. Lyle Falls was 

first modified in 1954 to improve passage, and a major remodel of the fishway at Lyle 

Falls is scheduled to begin in 2010 (Sharp et al. 2008). 

Data suggest that fine (<0.85 mm) sediment levels in the gravels are typically low (below 

20 percent) in the mainstem Klickitat River portion of the MaSA (Table 5-2), but 

sediment data are not available for the tributaries within the MaSA. Data suggest that 

water temperatures in the mainstem Klickitat rarely reach potentially lethal temperatures 

(Table 5-3). Water temperatures in Snyder Creek, Logging Camp Creeks, and Dillacort 

Canyon frequently exceed state standards and also exceed lethal temperatures in some 

years (Table 5-4). 

Large numbers of hatchery produced spring Chinook salmon, fall Chinook salmon, and 

coho salmon are released directly into the river above this MaSA, and hatchery summer 

steelhead are released within this MaSA (Sharp et al. 2008). These hatchery releases may 

compete for food and rearing space with naturally produced steelhead. Development 

impacts in the town of Klickitat likely have some local effect on habitat. There are 

stretches where the road prevents establishment of riparian vegetation. The road and 

railroad also impinge on the river in some locations. 

Table 5-4. Summary of water temperature data collected in the tributaries included in the Lower 

Mainstem Major Spawning Area (Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries Program 

2003; Zendt and Evenson 21005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt and Babcock 2009). 

Location Dates Average Annual 

No. Days >16oC 

Percent of days 

>18oC 

Percent of days 

>22oC 

Snyder Creek at 

Mill 

1997-2007 24.7 12.5 0 

Snyder Creek at 

Mouth 

1997-2007 65.5 40.6 11.2 

Logging Camp 

Creek 

2002-early 2007 59.4 43.2 10.8 (all in 2003 – 

54 days total that 

year) 

Dillacort Canyon 1997-early 2997 59.9 31.7 12.5 

Upper Little Klickitat Major Spawning Area 

The upper Little Klickitat MaSA encompasses the Little Klickitat River from Little 

Klickitat Falls to the headwaters and includes Spring, Cozy Nook, and Bloodgood creeks, 

West Prong and East Prong Little Klickitat, Idlewild Canyon, Dry and Butler creeks. 

Potential limiting factors: Upstream passage over a natural barrier. Other potential 

limiting factors include: habitat quality and quantity, flow, altered sediment routing, 

degraded water quality (temperature), disease, predation, competition, hatchery-related 

effects, and degraded channel structure and complexity. 

The upper Little Klickitat MaSA contains a mix of forested uplands managed for timber, 

with agricultural and grazing land in the lower region. As of the 2000 census, the City of 

51
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Goldendale, which has a population of approximately 3760 people (www.census.gov), is 

the only urban development in the Little Klickitat watershed. The two main 

thoroughfares of the Klickitat subbasin, SR 142 and US 97, converge at and pass through 

Goldendale. Hatchery rainbow trout are released into this MaSA to support recreational 

fisheries. 

Little Klickitat Falls, located at river mile 6.1, is 15 to 16 feet high (WPN and Aspect 

2005a). Fish passage is possible in rare cases, but these tend to be very high flow events 

(floods) in winter (D. Rawding, personal communication 2006). In some years when a 

very high flow event coincides with the time steelhead are moving upstream, a few fish 

may pass the falls and enter the MaSA. The presence of the barrier functionally excludes 

steelhead from the upper Little Klickitat MaSA in most years. 

Water temperature in the Little Klickitat River frequently exceeds the state standard and 

can exceed the likely lethal temperature in some areas (Table 3, Broack and Stohr 2002). 

The East Prong, West Prong, and mainstem Little Klickitat River; and Butler Creek, a 

major tributary to the Little Klickitat River, were listed on the 1998 303(d) list for 

temperature. Subsequently, a TMDL assessment and implementation plan were 

developed and adopted for the Little Klickitat River subbasin (Brock and Stohr 2002; 

Anderson 2004). Currently, the Little Klickitat River is listed as a Category 4b stream, 

meaning that the stream has an approved TMDL in place that is actively being 

implemented (Ecology 2008). 

Since steelhead rarely pass the falls, water temperatures in the Upper Little Klickitat 

MaSA likely do not affect overall steelhead production, except for the influence on water 

temperature downstream of the falls. A recent analysis of the trends in riparian 

vegetation within the Little Klickitat basin indicated that riparian vegetation has generally 

been increasing over the past 30 to 40 years (Aspect and WPN 2009). 

Sediment inputs into the Little Klickitat River MaSA could potentially affect spawning 

areas in the lower Little Klickitat MiSA. A Watershed Analysis was completed for the 

headwaters of the Little Klickitat basin in 1999 (Raines et al. 1999). That analysis 

indicated that forest roads were contributing significant sediment to the headwater 

streams. Since the analysis was completed, the new Washington Forest Practices Rules 

were adopted; this area is now covered under a Habitat Conservation Plan 

(http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesHCP/Pages/fp_hcp.aspx). The 

rules mandate the treatment of roads to minimize sediment inputs. 

West Fork Klickitat Major Spawning Area 

The West Fork MaSA includes the West Fork Klickitat River from top of falls #1 to 

headwaters, including Clearwater, Trappers and Fish Lake creeks. 

Potential limiting factors: Natural passage barriers and possibly altered sediment 

routing. 

52
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

A falls that totals 15 feet at RM 0.3 on the West Fork Klickitat currently hinders 

upstream anadromous fish passage, and probably limited historical passage to upstream 

habitat (LeMeir and Smith 1952). Another falls, 15 to 20 feet high, lies approximately 

four miles upstream and likely poses a similar challenge to upstream migration. LeMeir 

and Smith (1952) considered these falls to be passage barriers. Although some potential 

spawning areas exist in the watershed, factors such as gradient and natural confinement 

contribute to the assumption that this watershed would not be heavily used by spawning 

anadromous fish (though it is a stronghold for bull trout). 

This watershed ranked low in EDT model outputs for restoration potential, since existing 

data suggest that the West Fork environment has not been significantly altered from 

historical conditions. Currently, the biggest threat in the watershed is road failures 

upstream of fish-bearing reaches, which generate torrents and contribute fine sediment. 

Determining the extent and frequency of steelhead passage and spawning in this system 

is considered a research need. 

5.2.2 Minor Spawning Areas 

Swale Creek Minor Spawning Area 

The Swale Creek MiSA includes Swale Creek from the mouth to the south tributary 

below Harms Rd (RM 12.22). 

Potential limiting factors: It is likely that high stream temperature and low stream flow 

are limiting factors in this MiSA. Degraded habitat quality and quantity, altered sediment 

routing, disease, competition, predation, and degraded channel structure and complexity 

are also potential limiting factors. 

Stream flow in Swale Creek is intermittent near the mouth and upstream of river mile 3.1 

(WPN and Aspect, 2005a). Stream flow in the lower 3 miles of the creek has been 

estimated at less than 0.25 cfs during summer (WPN and Aspect 2005a, Aspect 2007). 

Stream flow in Swale Creek is influenced by a unique geological situation. The Warwick 

Fault, running northwest-southeast through Warwick (at roughly RM 12), is an important 

structural control on groundwater flow in the basin (WPN and Aspect, 2005a; Aspect 

2007). The fault forms a structural closure to the Swale Creek valley and creates an 

impoundment of groundwater to the east of the fault. The presence of the fault impedes 

westerly groundwater flow (WPN and Aspect 2005a; Aspect 2007). The upper and lower 

portions of Swale Creek are hydrologically connected in winter and spring when the 

alluvium upstream of the fault is saturated, resulting in surface flow. The groundwater 

subsequently drops after the spring rains. The upper and lower basins become 

hydrologically isolated once the groundwater level drops below the top of the fault. This 

normally occurs in April or May. Water present in Swale Creek in summer and fall 

downstream of Warwick is an expression of local seeps and springs located below the 

fault (WPN and Aspect, 2005a; Aspect 2007). 

The cadastral survey notes of the 1800s generally indicate that the flow situation in the 

1860s was similar to what is seen today (WPN and Aspect, 2005a). Studies of the local 

53
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

geology and groundwater flow in the area also indicate that it is unlikely that land use has 

affected the quantity of water entering this segment (WPN and Aspect, 2005a). 

Swale Creek has been listed as Category 5 (impaired, requires a water quality 

improvement plan) on the State of Washington’s 303(d) list for exceedances of state 

temperature criteria (Ecology 2008). Water temperature at all monitoring stations exceed 

22oC (potentially lethal) in all years (WPN and Aspect, 2005a). Since the creek is 

isolated from the Klickitat River in summer and movement of juvenile fish into the 

Klickitat is prevented, juveniles rearing in Swale Creek are likely subject to significant 

mortality when water temperatures rise above potentially lethal temperatures. 

Riparian vegetation along the lower 3 miles of the creek, which are perennially wet, is 

generally dense (WPN and Aspect, 2005a). A review of aerial photographs taken since 

1954 indicated that vegetation over the last 60 years has been influenced by a number of 

large flooding events that removed mature vegetation (WPN and Aspect, 2005a). An 

analysis of the trends in vegetation over time found that vegetation has generally been 

increasing along Swale Creek over the past 30 to 40 years (Aspect and WPN 2009). 

Limited information is available regarding other habitat conditions in the MiSA. 

An abandoned railroad bed confines the creek upstream of the perennial wetted area. 

Surveyor’s Creek Minor Spawning Area 

The Surveyor’s Creek MiSA contains branched habitat from Surveyor’s Creek. The 

MiSA, as shown in Figure 4-4, contains mainstem Klickitat habitat, but this is only due to 

the methodology of using existing Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) GIS data where 

possible. In this case, because the relevant HUC for Surveyor’s Creek was selected, the 

MiSA encompassed other reaches that did not meet branched habitat criteria but were 

within the HUC boundary. 

Potential limiting factors: Upstream passage is the primary limiting factor. Other 

potential limiting factors are altered sediment routing, water temperature, and 

competition.

The stream is impassable to salmon and steelhead. Between the mouth of the creek and a 

location approximately 0.8 miles upstream, the creek drops about 400 feet in a series of 

cascades and impassable falls (LeMeir 1952). Water temperatures frequently exceed 

16o

C, and occasionally reach potentially lethal temperatures (Table 5-3). 

Lower Little Klickitat Minor Spawning Area 

The Lower Little Klickitat MiSA covers the Little Klickitat River from the mouth to 

Little Klickitat Falls (RM 6.2), including lower Canyon and Bowman creeks. 

Potential limiting factors: Temperature is likely the primary limiting factor in the 

Lower Little Klickitat MiSA. The following are also potential limiting factors: disease, 

54
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

altered sediment routing, competition, habitat quality and quantity, predation, flow, and 

hatchery-related effects. 

The lower 6.1 miles of the Little Klickitat River provide rearing and limited spawning 

habitat for steelhead. Much of the MiSA runs through a deep canyon. There is little 

development along the canyon reach. Lower in the reach, some grazing and minor jeep 

trails are present. The mainstem Little Klickitat River and its tributaries Mill Creek and 

Bowman Creek are listed as a Category 4a for temperature on Ecology’s 303(d) list 

(Ecology 2008). Water temperatures regularly exceed the state standard in summer and 

occasionally exceed potentially lethal temperatures (Table 5-3). Riparian vegetation has 

generally increased since 1969 within the MiSA (Aspect and WPN 2009). The Little 

Klickitat TMDL (Anderson 2004, Brock and Stohr 2002) includes the Lower Little 

Klickitat River MiSA. The WRIA 30 Management Plan (WPN and Aspect 2005b) and 

the TMDL outline actions that should be taken to address temperature in the MiSA. 

Little to no data are available to address any other factors in this MiSA. 

Trout Creek Minor Spawning Area 

The Trout Creek MiSA extends up Trout Creek from the top of the falls to the headwaters 

and includes Bear Creek. 

Potential limiting factors: Natural passage barrier. The following are also potential 

limiting factors: altered sediment routing, competition, degraded water quality 

(temperature), habitat quality and quantity, and flow. 

Lower Trout Creek has a relatively steep gradient (20-25 percent over almost 0.25 miles). 

It is composed primarily of a boulder substrate, which does not, however, exceed the 

WDFW criteria for anadromous fish-bearing waters (20 percent gradient for 160 meters -

continuous, or waterfall over 12 feet in height). No steelhead have been observed to date 

above the high gradient reach (Evenson and Zendt 2004; Yakama Nation Fisheries 

Program 2003; Zendt and Evenson 2005; Zendt and Babcock 2007; Zendt 2006; Zendt 

and Babcock 2009). 

5.3 Tributary Harvest 

In the Klickitat River, there is both a recreational harvest and a Native American treaty 

harvest. Recreational fisheries for winter and summer steelhead occur in the Klickitat 

River from June 1 through November 30. Most steelhead are caught from June through 

September. A dip net fishery exclusive to enrolled Yakama tribal members is located at 

Lyle Falls (RM 2). Fishing seasons are set annually by the Yakama tribal council and are 

subject to in-year closures depending on run strength. The tribal steelhead dip net fishery 

generally occurs from April 1 through December 31. Harvest is monitored by Yakama 

Nation fisheries program personnel. 

Recreational steelhead fisheries in the Klickitat River are restricted to adipose fin-clipped 

hatchery steelhead only. Current regulations prohibit sport fishing for steelhead in the 

Klickitat River from December through May, and the treaty fishery is closed from 

January through March to protect the winter run (Bosch et al. 2004). Release of all 

55
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

unmarked wild steelhead is required. Tribal harvest regulations do not require the release 

of unmarked fish; however, many tribal fishers are returning wild fish to the river (J. 

Kiona, personal communication 2005). The Klickitat River Anadromous Fisheries 

Master Plan proposes to use an education outreach program to encourage more tribal 

fishers to adopt this practice while still respecting tribal culture and tradition (Sharp et al. 

2008). 

The overall mortality rate for catch-and-release fisheries depends on the encounter rate of 

naturally produced fish (percentage of run actually caught and released) in the fisheries, 

and the mortality rate associated with being caught and released (hook-and-release 

mortality). In winter steelhead fisheries, WDFW (2008) estimates that catch-and-release 

mortality is less than 5 percent, while mortality in summer steelhead fisheries in the 

Klickitat River is estimated to be less than 10 percent of the wild fish handled. The catch 

and release mortality only affects that proportion of the wild run that is encountered in 

the fishery. WDFW (2008) estimates that in the Klickitat River tributary fisheries that 63 

percent of the summer-run steelhead and 34 percent of the winter-run steelhead are 

handled. Multiplying the catch and release mortality rates by the encounter rates 

provides the estimate of tributary fisheries impacts of 6 percent for summer-run and 2 

percent for winter-run wild steelhead (WDFW 2008). 

ODFW performed a number of Population Viability Assessment model runs for 27 

steelhead populations to assess the impact of fisheries mortality on the status and 

recovery of steelhead in Oregon (Chilcote 2001). As mortality rates became greater than 

40 percent the probability of extinction increased dramatically. To address this concern, 

steelhead fisheries are managed not to exceed a maximum mortality limit of 20 percent. 

This conservative approach is used to provide a buffer for errors, even though the model 

results suggest that management under a 40 percent limit is unlikely to cause extinction. 

Treaty Native American fisheries also occur in the mainstem Klickitat River. The treaty 

Native American catch of all types of steelhead (summer and winter, wild and hatchery 

combined) in the Klickitat River is estimated at an average of 1,146 steelhead per year 

since 1986 (Sharp et al. 2008). Estimated tribal harvest of wild steelhead in the Klickitat 

averages 178 fish per year (Table 2-1) (Sharp et al. 2008). 

Steelhead harvest (sport and tribal combined) in the Klickitat River has averaged about 

2,500 fish annually from 1987 to 2004, with Skamania strain steelhead comprising an 

average 98.1 percent of the sport catch from 1986-2003 (Table 5-5). By contrast, a sport 

harvest-only table covering the years 1962-1966 averaged an annual catch of 3,312 

steelhead (summer only), peaking in 1966 at 8,093 fish (Washington Department of 

Game and Oregon State Game Commission 1968). 

56
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table 5-5. Estimated Harvest for Klickitat River Steelhead, 1986-2007 (Sharp et al. 2008).

Note: Data for this table are from YN and WDFW databases and US v. Oregon TAC reports 

1

Hatchery and wild proportions of tribal harvest are estimated as follows: For 1999-00 through 2005-06 

 percentages estimated from sampling of ceremonial and subsistence harvest were applied to total tribal 

harvest. 

 For 1986-87 through 1998-99 the average percentages from the 1999-2005 sampling were applied to total 

tribal harvest. 2

Sport Harvest numbers include data from May 1 - April 30 except for 2003-04, which does not include April 

data

 Sport Tribal 

Year Hatchery Wild Total Hatchery1 Wild1 Total 

1986-87 1,426 54 1,480 5,107 901 6,008 

1987-88 1,480 34 1,514 1,141 201 1,342 

1988-89 1,718 0 1,718 1,263 223 1,486 

1989-90 833 0 833 536 95 631 

1990-91 1,055 0 1,055 1,464 258 1,722 

1991-92 823 8 831 1,620 286 1,906 

1992-93 1,260 0 1,260 1,033 182 1,215 

1993-94 1,211 25 1,236 1,151 203 1,354 

1994-95 857 34 891 482 85 567 

1995-96 864 9 873 433 76 509 

1996-97 608 14 622 241 43 284 

1997-98 1,062 18 1,080 455 80 535 

1998-99 650 12 662 224 39 263 

1999-00 575 28 603 214 0 214 

2000-01 1,433 59 1,492 495 67 562 

2001-02 3,708 16 3,724 724 55 779 

2002-03 3,552 97 3,649 1285 363 1,648 

2003-042 1,673 0 1,673 369 151 520 

2004-05 1,658 0 1,658 747 153 900 

2005-06 1,115 0 1,115 368 98 466 

2006-07 61 

Avg: 1,378 20 1,398 968 178 1,146 

In the most recent ten years between 1997-98 and 2006-07, tribal harvest of wild 

steelhead in the Klickitat has ranged from 0 to 363 with an average of 107 fish annually 

(Table 5-5 above). Estimated harvest rates derived for years prior to 2005-06 are likely 

biased in favor of high returns, as a result of underestimated spawner escapement and 

total run size to the mouth of the Klickitat. For the return years of 2005-06 and 2006-07, 

estimated tribal harvest rates on wild steelhead were 5.8 percent and 3.5 percent, 

respectively (based on wild run abundance and tribal harvest below Lyle Falls as 

described in Appendix IV). Expansion of the spawner escapement estimates for harvest 

prior to these two years would suggest a much higher rate upward around 15 percent for 

the period of record of 1986-2007. Considering the recent two year average of 4.7 

percent expanded from the mark recapture abundance estimates, actual harvest over the 

57
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

recent ten year period of record has probably ranged from 3.5 percent - 10 percent of the 

wild run to the mouth of the Klickitat. 

Steelhead occupy many waters that are also occupied by resident trout species. It is not 

possible to visually separate juvenile steelhead from similarly sized stream-resident 

rainbow trout. Because juvenile steelhead and resident rainbow trout are the same 

species, are similar in size, and have the same food habits and habitat preferences, it is 

reasonable to assume that catch-and-release mortality studies on stream-resident trout 

also apply to juvenile steelhead. WDFW has implemented a number of regulation 

changes to limit impacts on juvenile steelhead in the Klickitat River. These include 

increasing the minimum size limit for rainbow trout fisheries from 6 inches to the current 

size limit of 12 inches. The daily bag limit was also reduced from 6 fish to 2 fish. Trout 

angling is only open from June 1 to November 30. These changes have reduced impacts 

on naturally produced juvenile steelhead/trout to less than 1 percent of the population, a 

substantial reduction from historical impacts of tributary fisheries, which were estimated 

to be over 50 percent (WDFW 2008). The continued release of rainbow trout in 

tributaries to the Little Klickitat River and the associated fisheries that do not follow the 

same regulations may adversely affect those naturally produced steelhead that are able to 

pass above the falls in the lower Little Klickitat River. Fisheries that target non-resident 

warm water species can affect juvenile steelhead but these fisheries are not present in the 

Klickitat River (WDFW 2008). WDFW has submitted to NMFS a Fisheries Management 

and Evaluation Plan (FMEP) for tributary fisheries in the Middle Columbia steelhead 

DPS to cover impacts from these fisheries under the 4(d) rule limit 4 of the ESA (WDFW 

2008).

Harvest of salmon and steelhead in the Klickitat River may include “dip-in” fish, which 

are destined for tributaries farther up the Columbia and Snake river systems, but 

temporarily stray to the Klickitat’s cool water refuges in the river’s lower reaches for 

short periods before continuing their upstream migrations. The contribution of dip-in 

hatchery steelhead in the Klickitat River harvest is believed to be small. Most hatchery 

steelhead are taken from river sections upstream of where dip-in fish are found, and the 

proportion of the harvest is primarily 2- and 3-salt fish typical of the Klickitat River 

steelhead (D. Rawding, personal communication 2006). 

5.4 Out-of-Subbasin Limiting Factors and Threats 

The Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan uses information from two 

“modules” developed by NMFS to address conditions in the Columbia River mainstem 

and estuary that affect all Middle Columbia steelhead: the Hydro Module, based on the 

NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System, and the 

Estuary Module (NMFS 2007). In addition to proposed actions in the management unit 

plans, the DPS Plan relies upon Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and Artificial 

Production for Pacific Salmon (Appendix C of the Supplemental Comprehensive 

Analysis, NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion) to address hatchery effects. For harvest 

effects, the Plan refers to fishery management planning through the 2008 U.S. v. Oregon 

agreement for mainstem fisheries, and Fisheries Management Evaluation Plans for 

58
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

tributary fisheries. The reader is referred to the DPS plan for this information. The 

following is a summary of the information most relevant to the Klickitat Plan. 

5.4.1 Harvest 

Steelhead destined for the Klickitat drainage can be caught in three types of fisheries as 

they migrate through the Columbia River and Pacific Ocean: ocean fisheries or mainstem 

Columbia River tribal or nontribal fisheries. 

Ocean Fisheries

Steelhead are rarely caught in ocean fisheries; therefore, these fisheries are not 

considered a significant source of mortality to Middle Columbia River steelhead (NMFS 

2000). Ocean fishing mortality on Middle Columbia River steelhead is assumed to be 

zero. 

Columbia River Mainstem Non-Tribal Fisheries

There has been no direct freshwater non-tribal harvest on wild steelhead from the MidColumbia DPS since 1992, when the last wild fish catch-and-release regulations on these 

populations became effective. Therefore, all current non-tribal harvest impacts on MidColumbia DPS steelhead are due to incidental bycatch in commercial or recreational 

fisheries that target hatchery steelhead or other species, and monitoring these impacts is 

complex. Released fish experience a mortality rate, possibly delayed and difficult to 

measure, that is highly variable and depends on what gear is used, how the fish is caught 

by the gear, how the fish are handled during capture and release, and environmental 

conditions. Release mortality is estimated to be very low (below 1 percent of encounters), 

with an unknown range of error. Recreational fisheries are monitored by creel surveys 

(fisheries technicians interview anglers about their catch, gear, and wild steelhead 

releases); the total recreational impact on winter and summer steelhead as they move 

through the mainstem to the tributaries is estimated to be less than 2.5 percent (ODFW 

2009, Oregon Recovery Plan). 

There are three stocks of summer steelhead used for management of treaty and non-treaty 

mainstem fisheries, including the lower Columbia River Skamania stock, upriver A-run 

stock, and upriver B-run stock. All MCR steelhead populations are designated A-run, 

with two populations being winter run. In NOAA’s Biological Opinion for the 2008-

2017 U.S. v. Oregon Fisheries Agreement the wild MCR steelhead DPS in the non-treaty 

winter, spring, and summer mainstem fisheries are subject to a 2 percent harvest rate limit 

(NMFS 2008b). Non-treaty fall fisheries are also limited to a 2 percent harvest rate limit 

for A-run summer steelhead. The total annual harvest rate limit for A-run steelhead in 

non-treaty fisheries is 4 percent and 2 percent for the summer-run and winter-run of the 

MCR steelhead DPS, respectively. The expected harvest impacts from non-treaty 

fisheries are less than the limits proposed in the U.S. v. Oregon fisheries Agreement. The 

yearly incidental catch of A-run steelhead in non-treaty fisheries has averaged 1.6 percent 

since 1999, and is not expected to change over the course of the Agreement (NMFS 

2008b). 

59
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Treaty Native American Fisheries

Tribal fishers in Zone 6 of the Columbia mainstem (between Bonneville Dam and 

McNary Dam) continue to retain wild steelhead for commercial sale or for personal use. 

The U.S. v. Oregon Fisheries Agreement does not establish specific harvest rate limits for 

treaty-Native American fisheries on steelhead during the spring or summer seasons which 

extend through July 31. Reported steelhead catch in Zone 6 winter and spring fisheries 

for 2003 to 2005 ranged from 0.7 percent to 7.9 percent of the winter steelhead run over 

Bonneville Dam. In 2004, reported and estimated non-reported steelhead catch together 

amounted to 4.8 percent of the run at Bonneville, with an unknown error around these 

numbers (ODFW 2009, Oregon Recovery Plan). 

Impacts on MCR steelhead from treaty-Native American fall fisheries are limited by 

harvest rate limits for B-run steelhead and Upper Columbia River bright fall Chinook 

(NMFS 2008b). The harvest rate on MCR summer-run steelhead in spring, summer, and 

fall Zone 6 treaty-Native American fisheries combined averaged 11.7 percent since 1985 

and 6.64 percent since 1998 (NMFS 2008b, Table 8.8.5.5-1). The impacts resulting from 

the treaty- Native American fisheries are expected to be similar to the 1998-2006 average 

of 6.64 percent. The harvest rate is less for populations that pass fewer dams in Zone 6 

and are therefore subject to fewer non- Native American and treaty Native American 

fisheries (e.g., Klickitat steelhead pass only one dam and would experience a harvest rate 

less than 6.64 percent). 

5.4.2 Columbia River Hydro Operations 

Hydropower system construction and operation (flow regulation) in the Columbia River 

basin has been a major cause of changes in the Columbia River and estuary from 

historical conditions. 

Within the Klickitat subbasin, steelhead and salmon were affected by creation of the 

Bonneville Dam pool on the mainstem Columbia River, which effectively inundated the 

lower 1.19 miles of the Klickitat River. This resulted in the loss of riparian, spawning, 

and rearing habitat and increased predation by native and non-native fish in the lower 

river. A lack of historical data inhibits quantitative evaluation of the impacts of 

Bonneville pool inundation on native fish, plant and wildlife species.

In the mainstem Columbia River, changes in river flow, circulation, water quality, 

contaminants, channel alterations, and predation have negative impacts on adult and 

juvenile fish. Hydro operations have changed flow conditions in the Columbia River and 

through the estuary. Before the development of the hydrosystem, Columbia River flows 

were characterized by high spring runoff from snowmelt and regular winter and spring 

floods. Dam construction and operation have altered Columbia River flow patterns 

substantially throughout its basin. Historical flow records at The Dalles, Bonneville 

Dam, and Beaver, Oregon, demonstrate that annual peak flows have been reduced by 

about 50 percent, as water is stored for power generation and irrigation, and winter flows 

have increased about 30 percent. 

60
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

The Columbia River Estuary Module, at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/ESA-Recovery -Plans/upload/Estuary-Module.pdf provides more information 

on factors that limit viability of Klickitat steelhead in the Columbia River Estuary. 

5.4.3 Ocean Conditions 

The effects of ocean conditions on abundance of Pacific salmon and steelhead vary 

among species and populations within species. Migration patterns in the ocean may 

differ dramatically and expose different stocks to different conditions in different parts of 

the ocean. Some species have broad, offshore migration patterns that may extend as far 

as the Gulf of Alaska (steelhead, chum, some Chinook). Others have migration patterns 

along the Washington, British Columbia, Oregon and California coasts (Chinook, coho, 

cutthroat). Thus, ocean conditions do not have coincident effects on survival across 

species or populations. 

Ocean survival of steelhead has been dramatically affected by widespread changes in 

ocean conditions. Cooper and Johnson (1992) showed that variation in steelhead run 

sizes and smolt-to-adult survival was highly correlated between runs up and down the 

West Coast. Smolt-to-adult survival rates generally varied 10-fold between good and bad 

years. Ocean survival rates for three West Coast steelhead populations where good 

annual index data were available showed high variability and a generally declining trend 

since the late 1970s. 

5.4.4 Climate Change 

Climate change represents a potentially significant threat to recovery of Mid-Columbia 

steelhead populations. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) for the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and 

NMFS reviewed the potential effects of climate change on salmonids in the Columbia 

River basin (ISAB 2007). The ISAB report shows that changes in climate may adversely 

affect steelhead in freshwater habitats across the DPS by exacerbating existing problems 

with water quantity (lower summer stream flows) and water quality (higher summer 

water temperatures). Consistently identified types of impacts on snow pack, stream flow, 

and water quality in the Columbia Basin are the following (ISAB 2007 p. 15-17): 

• Warmer temperatures will result in more precipitation falling as rain rather than 

snow. 

• Snow pack will diminish, and the timing of stream flow will be altered. 

• Peak river flows will likely increase. 

• Water temperatures will continue to rise. 

These changes may affect steelhead more than other salmonids because of their long 

rearing period in freshwater. 

Changing conditions could also affect salmonid health and survival in the ocean through 

a variety of mechanisms, including increased ocean temperatures, increased stratification 

of some waters, changes in the upwelling season, shifts in the distribution of salmonids, 

61
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

long-term variability in winds and ocean temperatures, increased acidity, and increased 

atmospheric and oceanic variability (NMFS 2007, 2008a; ISAB 2007). 

All other threats and conditions remaining equal, future deterioration of water quality, 

water quantity, and/or physical habitat can be expected to cause a reduction in the 

number of naturally produced adult steelhead returning to these populations across the 

DPS. This possibility further reinforces the importance of achieving survival 

improvements throughout the entire steelhead life cycle. Recent research also indicates 

that neighboring populations with differences in habitat may show different responses to 

climate changes (Crozier and Zabel 2006; Crozier et al. 2008). This research reinforces 

the importance of maintaining habitat diversity. Ongoing efforts to develop models of 

future climate effects should be considered in adaptive management. 

5.4.5 Other Large-Scale Threats 

Projected continued population growth will increase pressures for conversion of forestry 

and agricultural land uses to residential uses, with potential impacts on habitat and water 

conditions.

• Increase in exotic invasive species that potentially compete with native flora and 

fauna, and provide food and/or cover to species that potentially compete with, 

prey on or carry diseases which could affect native species. 

• New disease and/or pathogen introductions (e.g. from marine aquaculture 

operations on steelhead ocean migration routes, illegal stocking of out-ofsubbasin species). 

• Natural catastrophic events (e.g. earthquake, volcanic eruption and related 

effects). 

62
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

6. Recovery Strategy and Actions 

The preceding chapters summarize recovery goals, biological criteria and threats criteria, 

current status assessment, and the major limiting factors and threats identified for the 

Klickitat River steelhead population. How will we reach recovery? 

In this chapter, a recovery strategy is laid out to address the significant data gaps and 

uncertainties regarding the status of the Klickitat steelhead population and to address the 

potential limiting factors based on the existing, best available science; i.e. hatcheryrelated effects and degraded habitat, including natural barriers to fish passage. The 

strategy includes maintaining low harvest impacts and improving monitoring to verify 

those impacts. Fish passage and survival issues in the mainstem Columbia River and 

estuary are addressed in more detail in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS ESA 

Recovery Plan; in Section 6.5, these are summarized as most directly related to the 

Klickitat population. 

Lack of information about the Klickitat River steelhead population is a major problem for 

recovery planning for the Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS. The Klickitat 

population’s moderate risk rating was assigned primarily on the basis of uncertainty and 

lack of data, particularly with respect to the influence of hatchery fish on the wild 

steelhead population. Therefore, the first importance for a recovery strategy is to reduce 

the uncertainties by obtaining more information through monitoring and research. 

Monitoring and research needs are summarized here and described in greater detail in 

Chapter 8. 

Improvements in hatchery management and the construction of a new facility 26 river 

miles downstream of the major spawning area in the middle mainstem are designed to 

address the potential limiting factor of competition with hatchery fish. 

To address habitat degradation in the Klickitat watershed, the plan proposes to protect 

and improve ecosystem functions and restore ecological processes, first, by protecting 

and maintaining existing high quality and/or unimpaired habitats and ecosystem 

functions; and, second, by restoring degraded habitat where appropriate, through passive 

and active measures. 

Managing harvest for low impacts from both mainstem and tributary fisheries, and to 

reduce any adverse impacts that may be occurring, also is an important contribution to 

the population’s viability. 

For a species to achieve both ESA and broad-sense recovery, it would need to get on a 

definitive trajectory of improvement. The recovery strategies and actions are designed to 

work synergistically to improve survival throughout the steelhead life cycle, from egg to 

smolt to returning adult. Monitoring results will inform us of the progress the species has 

made toward recovery goals. 

63
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

6.1 Strategies and Actions to Address Data Gaps 

A research, monitoring, and evaluation plan should be designed collaboratively in the 

implementation phase of this plan to address the additional information needs that 

stakeholders and scientists have identified, as follows: 

• Determine abundance and productivity of natural steelhead spawners 

• Determine the impacts of Skamania hatchery steelhead releases on viability of the 

Klickitat population, if any. 

• Determine the effects of non-native coho and fall Chinook released from the 

hatcheries and naturalized in the river, if any. 

• Continue study and further refine understanding of habitat limiting factors. 

Strategy 1. Determine abundance and productivity of natural steelhead spawners 

Actions

• Fin clipping of hatchery fish – Continue fin clipping 100 percent of the hatchery 

released fish to facilitate the development of population estimates. 

 

• Adult counts at Lyle Falls Fishway adult trap – Continue to monitor the number of 

steelhead passing through the Lyle Falls adult trap. 

• Estimates of trap efficiency – Continue to monitor adult trap efficiencies with floy 

tags recovered in sport fisheries or during spawner/carcass surveys. Testing trap 

efficiency may be improved by releasing floy tagged fish downstream of the trap and 

identifying the percentage that re-enter the trap as they move upstream. Develop and 

publish annual estimates of trap efficiency.

• Abundance estimates – Based on the number of fish caught in the Lyle Falls Fishway 

adult trap and the estimates of trap efficiency, develop and publish annual estimates 

of the number of natural spawners. 

• Juvenile counts at the smolt trap locations – Continue to monitor and report the 

number of fish caught in the three rotary screw trap locations currently operated by 

Yakama Nation Fisheries in cooperation with WDFW. 

• Productivity estimates – Based on the number of fish caught at the rotary screw trap 

locations and the estimates of trap efficiency, develop and publish annual estimates of 

the number of naturally spawned steelhead smolts migrating out of the Klickitat 

basin. 

64
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Strategy 2. Determine impacts of Skamania Hatchery steelhead releases on viability 

of Klickitat steelhead population. 

Actions

• Spawner Surveys -Continue to conduct and report annual spawner surveys to track 

adult steelhead distribution in the MaSAs and MiSAs. 

• Portion of Natural Spawners of Hatchery-Origin - Estimate natural/hatchery adult 

spawner ratios by sampling carcasses on spawning grounds, or through other 

appropriate methods. 

• Estimates of Genetic Introgression - Based on the estimated proportion of 

hatchery-origin steelhead spawning naturally each year, develop estimates of the 

amount of genetic introgression that has likely occurred over the 40 years of 

hatchery operations. 

• Genetic Sampling - Increase juvenile and adult genetic sampling and analysis at 

spawning grounds and at various trap locations to help assess the level of 

domestication and interbreeding between hatchery and natural steelhead. 

• Stock Distribution - Focus radio-tagging studies to determine spatial and temporal 

distribution of natural Klickitat steelhead population and Skamania Hatchery 

steelhead, and the overlap between summer and winter-run steelhead in the 

Klickitat River. 

Strategy 3. Determine impacts of non-native coho and fall Chinook releases on 

viability of Klickitat steelhead population. 

Actions

• Fin clipping of hatchery fish – Continue fin clipping 100 percent of the hatchery 

released coho and fall Chinook to identify the number of hatchery released fish 

that spawn naturally in the Klickitat River. 

• Adult counts at Lyle Falls Fishway adult trap – Continue to monitor the number 

of coho and Chinook passing through the Lyle Falls adult trap. 

• Estimates of trap efficiency – Estimate the efficiency of the trap in intercepting 

coho, fall Chinook, and spring Chinook. Publish annual estimates.

• Abundance estimates – Based on the number of fish caught in the Lyle Falls 

Fishway adult trap and the estimates of trap efficiency, make annual estimates of 

the number of adult coho, fall Chinook, and spring Chinook entering the Klickitat 

basin. 

65
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

• Juvenile counts at the smolt trap locations – Continue to monitor and report the 

number of coho and Chinook caught in the three rotary screw trap locations 

currently operated by the Yakama Nation Fisheries in cooperation with WDFW. 

• Productivity estimates - Based on the number of coho and Chinook caught at the 

rotary screw trap locations and the estimates of trap efficiency, develop and 

publish annual estimates of the number of coho and Chinook smolts migrating out 

of the Klickitat basin. 

• Spawner surveys - Continue to conduct annual spawner surveys to track adult 

coho and fall Chinook distribution in the MaSAs and MiSAs, but expand the 

program to cover the entire area in which steelhead are known to spawn. 

• Estimate number of naturally spawning fish of hatchery-origin - Sample carcasses 

on spawning grounds to estimate natural/hatchery adult spawner ratios. 

• Overlap in distribution of spawning habitats - Assess the amount of overlap in the 

habitat occupied by steelhead and the introduced species. 

• Productivity of introduced species - Determine the productivity of the naturally 

spawned coho and fall Chinook, using the same methods used to determine the 

productivity of steelhead. 

• Competition between species – Evaluate the effects of competition with 

introduced species on rearing juveniles (differences in growth and survival with 

and without introduced species present) in a properly controlled experiment. 

• Estimate displacement of steelhead - Determine the area of steelhead spawning 

and rearing habitat displaced by coho and fall Chinook. 

• Effects of introduced species on productivity - Estimate the effect of introduced 

species on the productivity of steelhead in the basin. 

Strategy 4. Continue study and further refine understanding of habitat limiting 

factors. 

Actions

• Continue habitat study and incorporate new data into EDT, AHA, and/or other 

appropriate models. 

• Continue biological studies and incorporate new data into models. 

• Use adaptive management to adjust actions according to new information. 

66
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

6.2 Hatchery-Related Strategies and Actions 

The following strategies and actions address potential limiting factors and threats to 

Klickitat steelhead viability from hatchery-related effects. 

Strategy 1. Minimize adverse impacts of large-scale hatchery releases of U.S. v. 

Oregon production stocks (coho and fall Chinook) on Klickitat steelhead population. 

A satellite Wahkiacus Hatchery/Acclimation Facility (WHAF) at RM 17.0 on the 

Klickitat River is under development. Existing U.S. v. Oregon production of fall Chinook 

and coho will be transferred from the Klickitat Hatchery to the new facility. The 26 

miles of river between Klickitat Hatchery (RM 42.6) and WHAF (RM 17) contain EDT 

reaches in the upper end of the Lower Klickitat, Middle Klickitat, and Upper Middle 

Klickitat MaSAs (See Appendix II, Table II-1 for correlation between ICTRT and YN 

MaSAs and MiSAs). Physical habitat surveys and resulting EDT output identify these 

reaches as having the highest potential for restoration and preservation. Annual steelhead 

spawner surveys indicate that 60 percent of the mainstem spawning occurs in these 

reaches. 

The program is identified in the Klickitat Anadromous Fishery Master Plan (Sharp et al. 

2008). Transferring U.S. v. Oregon production stocks (coho and fall Chinook) to the 

WHAF accomplishes two primary objectives. First, it frees up critical water and space at 

the Klickitat Hatchery, ensuring that optimal rearing densities and protocols (YKFP and 

HSRG guidelines) are met for the two endemic stocks (Klickitat spring Chinook and 

Klickitat summer steelhead). Second, transferring coho and fall Chinook production 26 

miles downriver minimizes the impacts of large-scale hatchery releases on wild spring 

Chinook and steelhead rearing between the two facilities. Additionally, release of wellacclimated coho and fall Chinook from WHAF imprinted to the local groundwater 

signature will concentrate natural production in the immediate vicinity of the facility. 

Actions

• Develop satellite Wahkiacus Hatchery/Acclimation Facility at RM 17.0. 

• Transfer existing U.S. v. Oregon production of fall Chinook and coho from the 

Klickitat Hatchery to Wahkiacus facility. 

Strategy 2. Minimize adverse impacts from hatchery program on the Klickitat 

steelhead population. 

The Yakama Nation has been working with, the HSRG, NMFS, WDFW, Tribal fish and 

wildlife leaders, BPA, and others to develop a master plan for an integrated hatchery 

program for the Klickitat River (Sharp et al. 2008). The program will minimize adverse 

impacts on the natural steelhead spawning population. One option being explored by 

hatchery program managers is to replace the current program, which releases out-of-basin 

Skamania hatchery-origin smolts in the Klickitat River system, with a hatchery program 

that relies entirely on the use of natural-origin, summer steelhead from the Klickitat River 

for broodstock (Sharp et al. 2008). The new program would continue to provide harvest 

opportunities for treaty and non-treaty fisheries. A feasibility study will be conducted as 

67
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

part of the program to investigate broodstock collection and juvenile rearing strategies, 

expected smolt-to-adult survival rates, and the risks associated with current steelhead 

hatchery practices.

Actions

• Develop and implement Klickitat steelhead integrated hatchery program (Sharp et 

al. 2008). 

• Conduct feasibility study to gain needed information on broodstock collection, 

rearing strategies and expected smolt-to-adult survival rates, and to assess risks 

associated with current and proposed hatchery practices. 

• Evaluate out-of-basin steelhead strays. 

Strategy 3. Improve steelhead passage at Lyle Falls Fishway. 

Passage for summer and winter steelhead at Lyle Falls (RM 2.2 on the Klickitat River) 

can become difficult during low flow conditions. At low flows, minimal water passes 

through the fishway, whose exit channel is often shallow with exposed bedload, resulting 

in fish reluctant to enter and exit the fishway. New fish passage technology provides 

solutions to remedy problems with the fishway and facilitate increased passage through a 

wider range of flows, particularly during low flow conditions. Increased passage through 

a properly functioning fishway will not only facilitate the monitoring of returns and 

enable the collection of steelhead broodstock for the integrated hatchery program but will 

also ease steelhead migration. 

Actions

• Reconstruct Lyle Falls fishway to Federal design criteria to ease steelhead 

migration, facilitate the monitoring of returns, and function as a site for 

broodstock collection for the integrated hatchery program. 

Strategy 4. Assess steelhead natural recolonization of upper Klickitat watershed 

and the potential use of artificial propagation to accelerate recolonization. 

In 2005, full anadromous fish passage was restored into the Upper Klickitat watershed as 

a result of improvements to the Castile Falls Fishway. Analysis conducted by the 

Yakama Nation and ICTRT indicates that the current habitat potential above Castile Falls 

could substantially increase the abundance of Klickitat River steelhead once fully seeded. 

Efforts need to be implemented to adequately assess the natural recolonization of 

steelhead in the upper watershed and to explore the potential use of artificial propagation 

as a means to accelerate recolonization. 

The Yakama Nation is working with the HSRG, NMFS, WDFW, tribal leaders, BPA, and 

others to examine whether a conservation hatchery program could be used to accelerate 

recolonization of the Upper Klickitat watershed (Sharp et al. 2008). The program may 

also be used to provide harvest opportunities. The need for, and use of, artificial 

production to accelerate recolonization would be contingent upon the rate and extent that 

natural recolonization occurs in the upper watershed now that passage has been restored 

68
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

at Castile Falls. The decision to implement an artificial propagation program would 

likely imply that natural recolonization has been minimal and/or is occurring at an 

extremely slow rate. 

Actions

• Monitor annual natural escapement of steelhead into the upper subbasin. 

• Use Castile Fishway trap to collect biological data on O. mykiss migrating into the 

upper watershed, and to monitor trends in the genetic composition and diversity 

of the upper basin population. 

• Explore need for a conservation hatchery program to accelerate recolonization of 

upper Klickitat watershed. 

Strategy 5. Determine and minimize impacts of hatchery trout releases in the 

Klickitat subbasin. 

The continued release of Goldendale Hatchery trout in the Little Klickitat River should 

be evaluated by WDFW, because of the potential for adverse interactions with naturally 

spawning steelhead that are known to escape above the falls. WDFW planting records 

for 2006 show 5,214 hatchery rainbow trout were released into the upper Little Klickitat 

River and 844 hatchery rainbow trout were released into Bird Creek, a tributary to Outlet 

Creek in the Glenwood Valley. Goldendale Hatchery rainbow trout have been cultured to 

be “fall spawners” to minimize genetic impacts. However competition, predation, 

disease, and harvest impacts should be evaluated. 

Potential evaluations include investigating the use of triploid trout (sterile) releases into 

streams where steelhead directly reside, or where outplants can colonize downstream. 

Because of potential for negative interaction, the Yakama Nation releases only triploid 

hatchery trout in lakes for recreational fisheries within the reservation boundaries. At a 

minimum, mark all hatchery trout and require release of unmarked juveniles.

Actions

• Investigate impacts of WDFW hatchery trout plants into the Klickitat subbasin. 

6.3 Freshwater Habitat Strategies and Actions 

This plan proposes a strategy to protect and improve ecosystem functions and restore 

normative ecological processes. The components of the strategy are, first, to protect and 

maintain existing high quality and/or unimpaired habitats and ecosystem functions; and, 

second, to restore degraded habitat where appropriate, through passive and active 

measures. 

• Protection and maintenance of existing high quality habitats is a broad, 

economical approach to species recovery. Many objectives are likely to be met 

through habitat protection and the associated natural recovery of upland and 

riparian areas. Protection and maintenance includes compliance with existing 

rules and regulations, such as the State Forest Practices Act, Klickitat County 

69
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Shorelines Master Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance, and other state and county 

regulations designed to protect aquatic habitat. Protection may also incorporate a 

wide range of voluntary actions such as fencing riparian areas, participation in the 

various agricultural land reserve programs, and voluntarily implementing 

programs that help to avoid impacts to aquatic resources. Land acquisitions, 

conservation easements, cooperative agreements, and protective land designations 

can also be used to facilitate high quality habitat protection. 

• Restoration and enhancement of habitat conditions for salmon and steelhead 

populations should improve population production. The value of these actions to 

the viability of the population will depend on whether or not they address the 

factors currently limiting the population or threats associated with factors that are 

now, or are trending toward, becoming limiting, e.g. climate change. The success 

of these strategies is further enhanced when actions build from existing 

restoration efforts and incorporate a range of project types that address the many 

interrelated habitat impairments related to the limiting factors. 

The overall strategy is further differentiated into the following types of action to address 

potential limiting factors and threats for Klickitat steelhead production: 1) protect stream 

corridor structure and function; 2) restore passage and connectivity between habitat areas; 

3) restore floodplain function and channel migration processes; 4) restore riparian 

condition; 5) restore altered hydrographs to enhance instream flows during critical 

periods; and 6) restore degraded water quality, including water temperatures. Finally, 

more specific management actions are described. 

Priority Geographic Areas 

Geographical areas within the Klickitat subbasin that may have greater restoration value 

than others for the health and productivity of Klickitat steelhead were identified through 

three related efforts: the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 2004 subbasin 

planning process; the Klickitat Lead Entity process performed under the Washington 

State Salmon Recovery Planning process SB2496; and Yakama Nation’s 2005 and 2006 

EDT model runs (unpublished), which incorporated major spawning areas. 

• The purpose of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s subbasin 

planning process was to “provide a basin-wide approach to developing locally 

informed fish and wildlife protection and restoration priorities,” and to “bring 

people together in a collaborative setting to improve communication, reduce 

conflicts, address problems, and, wherever possible, reach consensus on 

biological objectives and strategies that will improve coordinated natural resource 

management on private and public lands.” One of the subbasin goals, similar to 

the broad-sense goal proposed by the Yakama Nation for this recovery plan, was 

“to restore and maintain sustainable, naturally producing populations of spring 

Chinook and stelhead that support tribal and non-tribal harvest and economic 

practices while protecting the biological integrity and the genetic diversity of the 

subbasin.” 

70
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

The 2004 Klickitat Subbasin Plan ranked geographic areas based on analysis of 

EDT model outputs of environmental and survival attributes, and the potential 

benefit to population parameters that the model identified. Various EDT outputs, 

such as a reach analysis and a breakdown of relative importance of geographic 

areas for protection and restoration measures (both standard outputs as well as 

outputs normalized to correct for weighting of reach length), rank population 

performance parameters by individual life stage, as well as averaged across all life 

stages. 

• The Klickitat Lead Entity’s Citizens Committee also identified the equivalent of 

broad-sense goals and, with assistance of the Lead Entity’s Technical Committee, 

identified and prioritized reaches with corresponding habitat and restoration 

actions for the purpose of prioritizing projects for grant funding and assisting with 

voluntary conservation efforts of priority basin fish species (steelhead, rainbow 

trout, mountain whitefish, Chinook salmon, bull trout, etc.). The Klickitat Lead 

Entity Strategy was developed for use by the Lead Entity Organization for nonregulatory purposes and has not been subject to peer review or other quality 

assurance processes appropriate for regulatory application of its contents 

(Klickitat Lead Entity, 2006, 2007, 2008). The Lead Entity Organization 

developed a matrix of priority areas considering community interests and used a 

mix of existing data from habitat assessments, fish distribution surveys, and 

spawning ground surveys, as well as knowledge of professionals familiar with the 

subbasin. Data sources included published reports from Yakama Nation 

Fisheries, WDFW, WDOE, consulting firms, as well as unpublished databases 

maintained by these agencies and professional judgment. 

Identification of Potential Projects

Actions to address limiting factors in the Klickitat basin were identified using EDT 

modeling, other processes, and best professional judgment. The 2005 and 2006 EDT 

models were also used to identify primary limiting factors by life stage and reach and to 

rank the relative restoration and protection potential of the six major spawning areas and 

five minor spawning areas identified by Yakama Nation Fisheries in the Klickitat 

drainage (Figure 6-1). This information, as well as costs, quantitative and qualitative 

assessments of project time frames, implementability, time to implement, time to realize 

benefits and impact of those benefits on limiting factors and VSPs at 10 and 25 years out, 

were all fed into a custom-built relational database for prioritizing salmon recovery 

actions in the Klickitat subbasin. It is important to note that the accuracy of any modeling 

effort depends on the assumptions and information put into the model. This and other 

modeling will be revisited as more data are collected on habitat conditions in the basin 

through ongoing and proposed monitoring and research. 

The delineations of the spawning areas identified by the Yakama Nation differ from those 

identified by the ICTRT in a few areas (see Appendix II, Table II-1). Nevertheless, 

findings from the EDT analysis were useful in developing the suite of freshwater habitat 

strategies and actions. 

71
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Figure 6-1. EDT Estimate of Relative Importance of Major and Minor Spawning Areas for 

Protection and Restoration Measures for Klickitat Steelhead (2005 YN EDT model analysis, 

unpublished data). 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Upper Klickitat B3A1

Middle Klickitat A2B4

Klickitat Canyon A1C6

Lower Klickitat B4A3

White Cr. C5A2

Swale Cr. D8B5

Lower Little Klickitat C7C7

Upper Middle Klickitat C5D9

Upper Little Klickitat D8C8

Trout Cr. E 11 E 10

West Fork Klickitat R. D 10 E 11

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Klickitat River Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20%

Freshwater habitat strategies and actions to improve the viability of the Klickitat 

steelhead population are described in Tables 6-1 through 6-6. The strategies address the 

key factors and threats potentially limiting population viability and are based on results 

from EDT analysis and other assessments, including the ICTRT’s viability assessment for 

the populations. 3

Primary freshwater actions identified for steelhead focus on restoring ecological 

functions in the watershed. These actions include: increasing floodplain channel and 

roughness, reconnecting side-channels, improving floodplain connectivity, relocating 

floodplain infrastructure and roads, improving maintenance, rehabilitating and 

decommissioning roads as appropriate, re-establishing and/or enhancing native 

vegetation within floodplain, implementing practices that leaves naturally occurring 

sources of large woody debris instream, and/or artificially introduce large debris or other 

structure. The tables also identify priority locations where implementation of actions 

under each strategy will reap the greatest benefits. 

Results from Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) modeling in 2005 by Yakama 

Nation Fisheries (unpublished) provide some indication of the change in steelhead 

production that might be expected to occur if all historical habitat areas above Castile 

Falls were fully seeded. The modeling effort measured intrinsic productivity, equilibrium 

abundance, and capacity of the system for steelhead within spawning locations defined 

by resource specialists. Two scenarios were developed: 1) full blockage, with Castile 

Falls completely blocking upstream fish passage ― as was the case from the early 1960s 

until modifications were completed in 2005 ― and 2) full passage, with 100 percent 

passage at Castile Falls and assuming that all habitat above it had been fully seeded with 

anadromous fish (currently passage is open, but the area is only beginning to be recolonized, a process that might require years to fully take place unaided). 

 

3 Tables 6-1 through 6-6 were not developed through the Klickitat Lead Entity Strategy or the Lead Entity 

process. 

72
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

73

Modeling results for the full blockage scenario suggest that the theoretical intrinsic 

productivity (current with harvest) of the system with no passage above Castile is 3.6, 

and equilibrium abundance is 1,064 steelhead. In contrast, under the full passage 

scenario, with 100 percent passage and habitat seeding above Castile, intrinsic 

productivity increased to 3.7 and equilibrium abundance to 1,628. The potential increase 

in capacity of fully opening habitat above Castile rose from 1,475 to 2,222 steelhead. 

These EDT projections, however, do not represent the return for any given year, but 

rather the potential return if the population is not limited by density-dependent factors, 

natural disasters or other mortality factors. The projections represent the potential for a 

population to recover when conditions improve. It is possible that some factors might be 

under- or overestimated. It is always necessary to adjust the results after comparing with 

actual observations, other data, and expert opinion. 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

74

Table 6-1. Strategy 1: Protect Stream Corridor Structure and Function.

Protect stream corridor structure and function 

Actions Limiting Factors 

Addressed Threats Addressed VSP Parameters Addressed Life Stages Affected 

a) Protect existing habitat from future degradation through conservation easements, acquisitions, reclassification of lands as natural areas, enforcement of land use regulations. 

b) Riparian forest management and planning: plan to leave buffer strips in riparian forest zones. c) Limit riparian livestock grazing. d) Assess effects of groundwater development on tributary flow. 

e) Manage diversions to maximize instream summer flows. 

Many factors, including key habitat quantity, habitat diversity, sediment load, water quality, altered flow regimes, predation 

Floodplain infrastructure; timber, agricultural and grazing practices; habitat fragmentation due to land development 

Productivity, abundance, spatial structure 

All Protecting func

that are in balanwater and sedimAll streams wilbecause a stream some erosion is spawning gravefunctions (such 

needed for riparExisting quality land acquisition WDFW or a lancurrently in Stacould be reclassProtecting base appropriations iprotecting exist

Priority Locations (geographic areas) 

Mainstem Klickitat and throughout MaSA watersheds. Highest priorities: Klickitat River from RM 70.5 to RM 87.05, Piscoe Creek, Diamond Fork, Butte Meadows Creek

Table 6-2. Strategy 2: Restore Passage and Connectivity between Habitat Areas. 

Restore passage and connectivity between habitat areas 

Actions Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP Parameters Addressed Life Stages Affected 

a) Replace culverts. b) Monitor effectiveness of passage improvements at Castile Falls. c) Improve passage at Lyle Falls. d) Study passage at mouths of spawning tributaries relative to flow and alluvial fan morphology. e) Monitor and continue restoration efforts in Snyder Creek mill reach (flume passage improvements and riparian re-vegetation.) f) Determine extent of problem for inadequately screened intakes. g) Ensure that pump intakes are adequately screened. 

Passage obstructions, altered flow regimes, key habitat quantity, water withdrawals 

Inundation by Bonneville Pool, undersized/ inadequate culverts, irrigation diversions, instream structures, past riparian logging and stream cleaning, floodplain infrastructure, insufficient flow at tributary mouths 

Spatial structure, abundance, productivity 

All, particularly adults and age 0-2 juveniles 

Partial-barrier culveupstream on Piscoe Creek, and on some (numerous), on Whupstream movemenperennial refugia. Prestricts access to spflow and alluvial fan Steelhead and sprincolonizing spawninFalls now that passaeffectiveness of pasDisconnecting roadretention. 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

75

Restore passage and connectivity between habitat areas 

Actions Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP Parameters Addressed Life Stages Affected 

Priority Locations (geographic areas) Piscoe Creek, McCreedy Creek, White Creek and tributaries, Little Klickitat tributaries, upper Klickitat mainstem, West Fork Klickitat, Trout Creek. Highest priorities: Cast

tributary streams 

Table 6-3. Strategy 3: Restore Floodplain Function and Channel Migration Processes.

Restore floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Actions 

Limiting 

Factors 

Addressed

Threats Addressed VSP Parameters Addressed Life Stages Affected 

a) Place LWD or other structures to stop 

headcutting. 

b) Restore stream length. c) Restore cross-sectional morphology and 

roughness. 

d) Augment gravel. e) Increase pool quantity and quality; pool: 

riffle ratio. 

f) Improve pool cover and hiding refugia. g) Restore floodplain and side-channel 

connectivity. 

h) Increase floodplain and channel roughness. i) Re-vegetate riparian areas. j) Relocate/ soften floodplain infrastructure. 

Modify historical railroad grade. 

k) Disconnect roads from stream network to 

improve watershed and water retention. 

l) Improve surface and drainage characteristics 

of roads in tributary watersheds. 

m) Perforate roads to allow peak flows to move 

onto floodplain. 

n) Relocate/ abandon mid-slope roads where 

possible; relocate/abandon valley-bottom roads where possible. 

o) Close/relocate ORV trails. p) Limit riparian livestock grazing. q) Investigate off-channel livestock watering. r) Promote no-till cropping and riparian buffers 

in agricultural areas, 

s) Modify land-uses and/or implement 

structures to retain storm flow and decrease time of concentration from watershed upstream of canyon (Swale Creek). 

Habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, sediment load, altered flow regimes, altered food web, water temperature, predation 

Hydroconfinement; floodplain infrastructure; timber and grazing management activities; habitat fragmentation due to subdivision, land-clearing and development 

Productivity, abundance, spatial structure 

All The

sidhabrefuInsstabstreeffeTyprooand resunlcan 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

76

Restore floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Actions 

Limiting 

Factors 

Addressed

Threats Addressed VSP Parameters Addressed Life Stages Affected 

Priority Locations (geographic areas) Highest priorities: Chaparral Creek, Coyote Creek, McCreedy Creek, Butte Meadows Creek, Klickitat R. from Castle Falls (RM 65.75) to RM 87.05, upper Diamond Fork 

Table 6-4 Strategy 4: Restore Riparian Condition.

Restore riparian function and condition. 

Actions Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP Parameters Addressed Life Stages Affected 

a) Re-vegetate riparian areas. b) Limit riparian livestock grazing. c) Monitor and continue restoration efforts in Snyder Creek mill reach (flume passage improvements and riparian re-vegetation.) d) Investigate off-channel livestock watering. e) Control/eradicate noxious invasive plant species from priority habitats.. 

Habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, sediment load, altered flow regimes, altered food web, water temperature 

Floodplain infrastructure; timber and grazing management activities; habitat fragmentation due to subdivision; channel incision 

Productivity, abundance, spatial structure 

All Prima

inclulivestthat pplantecoloinclubank oppo

Priority Locations (geographic areas) Trout Creek, Upper Little Klickitat, Lower Little Klickitat, Klickitat Canyon, Swale Creek, Lower Klickitat, Middle Klickitat, White Creek, Upper Klickitat. Highest prioritieCreek, Piscoe, Diamond Fork, Coyote, Butte Meadows, Klickitat R. from Castile Falls (RM 65.75) to RM 87.05 

Table 6-5. Strategy 5: Restore Altered Hydrographs to Enhance Instream Flows during Critical Periods. 

Enhance instream flow during critical periods. 

Actions 

Limiting 

Factors 

Addressed 

Threats Addressed VSP Parameters Addressed Life Stages Affected 

a) Obtain instream flow right for mainstem Klickitat. b) Restore floodplain connectivity in tributaries. c) Assess effects of groundwater development on tributary flow. d) Manage diversions to maximize instream summer flows. e) Re-introduce beaver. 

Habitat diversity, key habitat quantity, sediment load, altered flow regimes, water temperature, water withdrawals 

Floodplain infrastructure; road, timber, agricultural and grazing management activities; hydroconfinement; water withdrawals, beaver removal 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

All, particularly 0-1 age life stages 

HydrolmodifiedistribuShortenchangeintercepcommureduced resultinbase floability 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

77

Enhance instream flow during critical periods. 

incision velocitistream 

Priority Locations (geographic areas) Lower Klickitat, Middle Klickitat, Lower Little Klickitat, Upper Little Klickitat, White Creek, Trout Creek, Swale Creek Highest priorities: streams in the lower and middle Knight Canyon, Dillacort, Wheeler, upper Canyon, Beeks Canyon, and Dead Canyon creeks, and portions of White Creek. 

Table 6-6. Strategy 6: Restore Degraded Water Quality, including Water Temperatures. 

Restore degraded water quality, including water temperatures. 

Actions Limiting Factors Addressed Threats Addressed VSP Parameters Addressed Life Stages Affected 

See actions for Strategy 3. a) Short-term fertilization of stream with carcasses or carcass analogs. b) Improve road drainage characteristics and surfacing. c) Re-vegetate riparian areas to reduce stream temperatures. d) Conduct pathogen sampling and monitoring. e) Investigate off-channel livestock watering f) Assess nutrient and dissolved oxygen levels in the Little Klickitat River, particularly downstream of Goldendale. 

Sediment load, altered flow regimes, water temperature, water quality, altered food web, pathogens 

Road, timber and grazing management activities, particularly in riparian areas; incision 

Abundance, productivity, spatial structure 

All life stages Ripari

parts oinfrastconfincontribLoss oavailabrefugiaReducaquatic Carcassource 

Priority Locations (geographic areas) Highest priorities: Klickitat River from RM 70.5 to RM 87.05, Chaparral Creek, Diamond Fk., Piscoe Creek 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

6.4 Harvest-Related Strategies and Actions 

WDFW will continue to manage Klickitat tributary sport fisheries for selective fisheries 

that target marked hatchery summer steelhead. Tributary fisheries will be managed under 

a Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan for Middle Columbia River steelhead 

submitted to NMFS by WDFW, which is currently going through NMFS review. 

Columbia River mainstem harvest of steelhead will continue to be managed through the 

U.S. v. Oregon process, and will be subject to consultations with NMFS. Enhanced 

public education and fisheries enforcement will be incorporated along with new selective 

fisheries regulations to ensure understanding and compliance. 

Treaty Native American fishing rights in the Columbia basin are under the continuing 

jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in the case of United 

States v. Oregon, No. 68-513 (filed in 1968). The parties to U.S. v. Oregon are the 

United States acting through the Department of Interior (USFWS and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs) and Department of Commerce (NMFS), the Warm Springs, Umatilla, Nez Perce, 

Yakama, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the states of Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho. In U.S. v. Oregon, the Court affirmed that the treaties reserved for the tribes 50 

percent of the harvestable surplus of fish destined to pass through their usual and 

accustomed fishing areas. 

Starting in 1977, tribal and state fisheries subject to U.S. v. Oregon have been regulated 

pursuant to a series of court orders reflecting court-approved settlement agreements 

among the parties. The last long-term agreement, known as the Columbia River Fishery 

Management Plan (CRFMP) was adopted and approved by the Court in 1988 and expired 

in 1999. Since 1999, Columbia River mainstem fisheries have been managed via short 

term settlement agreements adopted by the Court. Artificial propagation programs 

upstream of Bonneville Dam have also been incorporated into these agreements, because 

of their importance to providing fish for harvest. Harvest plans for tributary fisheries are 

developed cooperatively by the management entities with primary management 

responsibility in the respective subbasin. A new U.S. v Oregon Management Agreement 

has been completed and NMFS has completed a Section 7 Biological Opinion addressing 

the impacts of the fisheries management action and hatchery production in the new 

agreement ( https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/biop_results_detail?reg_inclause_in=('NWR')&idin=107547). The new management 

agreement will cover Columbia River fisheries management and hatchery production 

actions for the period from 2008 to 2017. 

During the last 10-15 years, harvest has been managed pursuant to the CRFMP and 

successor agreements that contain restraints on the fisheries necessitated by ESA listings. 

The agreements quantify and allocate harvest between tribal and non-tribal fishing 

subject to ESA-imposed constraints for listed species. The current U.S. v. Oregon

harvest constraint for steelhead is set to protect Group “B” index fish returning to Idaho 

with impacts from Non-Native American fisheries limited to 2 percent and tribal fisheries 

to 15 percent. Group “A” index fish (including those returning to the Klickitat River) are 

affected by tribal fisheries at a substantially lower rate than Group “B” index fish. The 

78
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

new agreement sets an impact limit on naturally produced Mid-Columbia River steelhead 

of no more than 2 percent in non-treaty fisheries but does not set a limit for treaty 

fisheries. However, NMFS expects impacts from the treaty fisheries to continue to be in 

the range observed since 1998, averaging around 6.64 percent. 

In 2002, WDFW instituted a sport fishing rule change for the Klickitat River proposed by 

the Yakama Nation. The rule change closed fishing for rainbow trout in lower subbasin 

tributaries of the Klickitat River (Swale, Wheeler, and Snyder Creek). The purpose was 

to protect rearing steelhead juveniles from take and harassment. 

Strategy 1. Study and limit impacts of harvest practices on Klickitat steelhead 

population. 

Enforcement of sport and tribal fishing regulations and control of illegal fishing on and 

off the reservation is a priority. Poaching and harassment of steelhead in the Klickitat 

subbasin occurs at an unknown rate. 

Actions

• Enforce tribal and sport regulations to eliminate illegal harvest. 

6.5 Mainstem Columbia Hydrosystem and Estuary -- Strategies 

and Actions 

The plan for current mainstem hydro operations, as summarized in the Hydro Module 

(NMFS 2008c), and any further improvements for fish survival that may result from the 

ongoing Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) collaborative process, represent 

the hydropower recovery strategy for all listed salmonids that migrate through the 

mainstem Columbia River, including the Middle Columbia steelhead populations. 

The Hydro Module summarizes the general effects of Columbia River mainstem 

hydropower projects on all 13 ESA-listed salmonids in the Columbia basin, including the 

limiting factors and threats and expected actions (including site-specific management 

actions), or strategy options, to address those threats. This module is a synthesis of 

information that has undergone public processes for review, including, but not limited to, 

the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) 2008 Biological Opinion (NMFS 

2008b), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing proceedings, and 

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). It may be updated as additional information becomes 

available. 

The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) for the FCRPS (2008b) takes a 

comprehensive approach to ESA protection that includes hydro, habitat, hatchery, harvest 

and predation measures to address the biological needs of salmon and steelhead in every 

life stage. The RPA is the product of the collaboration between NMFS and the Action 

Agencies ordered by the court. It is based on a comprehensive analysis of the salmon life 

cycle conducted down to the level of the populations that make up the listed species. 

Section 8.8 and the “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Table” in the 2008 FCRPS 

79
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Biological Opinion describe actions that should positively affect Middle Columbia River 

steelhead. 

The current plan for operation of the FCRPS through 2018 (NMFS 2008a) contains the 

following actions intended to address the needs for survival and recovery of ESA-listed 

salmon and steelhead: 

• Continue adult fish passage operations that have resulted in improved survival.

• Improve juvenile fish passage: install removable spillway weirs or similar surface 

bypass devices at John Day and McNary dams, an extended tailrace spill wall at 

The Dalles Dam, and various modifications at Bonneville Dam. Passage for 

steelhead smolts at each of the four Lower Columbia River mainstem projects 

must reach 96 percent survival.

• Continue and enhance spill for juvenile fish passage.

• Continue reservoir operations and river flows to benefit spring migrating 

juveniles.

• Develop dry water year operations to better protect migrating juveniles.

• Develop and implement a kelt management plan. 

The Estuary Module, which NMFS prepared in collaboration with the Lower Columbia 

Estuary Partnership (NMFS 2007), focuses on habitat in the lower Columbia River below 

Bonneville Dam and how that habitat affects the survival of ESA-listed chum, steelhead, 

Chinook, and coho from throughout the Columbia River basin. It identifies and prioritizes 

limiting factors and threats in the estuary, then identifies 23 broad actions whose 

implementation would reduce the threats and thus increase survival of salmon and 

steelhead during their time in the estuary. The module also estimates the cost of 

implementing each action over a 25-year period. A description of monitoring, research, 

and evaluation needs that are appropriate to the management actions is included as an 

appendix to the module. 

6.6 Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions 

This section presents an analysis of the potential effects of proposed recovery actions on 

the abundance and productivity of the Klickitat population of Middle Columbia River 

steelhead, based on the 2005 and 2006 EDT modeling done by Yakama Nation Fisheries 

(unpublished). Estimated levels of effectiveness for the proposed actions were generated 

and used as inputs into quantitative models to project the potential impacts of those 

changes on the population. This quantitative analysis provides an opportunity to evaluate 

the efficacy of proposed recovery strategies in light of current knowledge regarding 

population functioning, including relationships with habitat conditions. Equally 

important, the quantitative models used in the assessment provide a framework for 

productively targeting evaluation efforts as well as for revisiting key assumptions in the 

80
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

future as more information becomes available (e.g., from monitoring responses to initial 

implementation or from evaluation efforts targeting key uncertainties). 

The analysis was performed sequentially, first by projecting effects for tributary habitat 

actions alone, then sequentially adding in hatchery, hydro, predation, estuary, and harvest 

actions. The results at each step provide a means for comparing estimated relative 

benefits of the proposed suites of actions, and, finally, the potential benefit of all the 

proposed actions to the Klickitat steelhead population. 

Two models were used: Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) and the All-HAnalyzer (AHA). The EDT model has commonly been used in regional planning efforts 

to evaluate potential responses to tributary habitat restoration efforts. The EDT model 

uses derived relationships between habitat characteristics and fish survival to calculate 

changes in survival, abundance, and productivity that could result from changes in the 

habitat. Use of the EDT model requires a set of inputs that describe current habitat 

conditions and the expected changes in habitat conditions that would result from a 

proposed action scenario. This model could be used, for example, to calculate the 

improvement that would be expected from a 10 percent drop in water temperature during 

the period of egg incubation in a certain tributary reach. The AHA model encompasses 

prospective relationships between all the “H” factors: habitat, hatcheries, hydro, and 

harvest. Thus, the results of the EDT model become one set of information fed into the 

AHA model to produce an estimate of the benefits of all the proposed actions. 

It is important to note that the modeling results relative to recovery criteria are a function 

of the input information and key assumptions associated with the translation of actions 

into habitat changes, habitat and life-stage survival relationships, and population 

dynamics. Although the modeling provides valuable insight into the potential responses 

to recovery actions, the estimated potential responses are dependent on the assumptions 

and information put into the models. 

Abundance and productivity are projected to increase for all scenario combinations 

analyzed for Klickitat River steelhead (Table 6-7; note that performance values in the 

table are direct output from EDT/AHA). The largest contribution to performance 

improvements results from the combination of tributary habitat actions throughout the 

basin and recolonization of the upper watershed (recolonization of the upper watershed is 

possible because of passage improvements at Castile Falls). In contrast, relatively small 

increases are attributable to mainstem actions. 

Table 6-7 shows estimated population performance (productivity and abundance) of 

Klickitat River steelhead associated with combinations of all priority tributary and out-ofsubbasin actions. Population performance measures are directly from EDT/AHA and 

were not converted to ICTRT-equivalent performance values (the ICTRT was unable to 

empirically estimate baseline performance measures for this population because of a lack 

of data). Results are shown with and without recolonization of the upper watershed. All 

scenario combinations include average ocean conditions (average during baseline and 

current conditions); ocean ±25% represents performance of combined actions under 

81
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

relatively poor and good ocean conditions. Scenarios were run in a stepwise fashion, 

starting with baseline, then current conditions, and then adding in actions sequentially, 

each being added to the previous scenario. 

Table 6-7. Estimated Productivity and Abundance of Klickitat River Steelhead Associated with 

Combinations of all Priority Tributary and Out-of-Subbasin Actions. 

Performance 

period 

Scenario 

combination 

Performance metric 

Productivity Abundance 

Actions 

without 

recolonization 

of upper 

watershed 

Actions with 

recolonization 

of upper 

watershed 

Actions without 

recolonization of 

upper watershed 

Actions with 

recolonization of 

upper watershed 

Base 1.77 939 

Base-Current 1.92 1.92 1,118 1,118 

CurrentProspective 

Habitat 2.12 2.38 1,319 2,320 

Hydro 2.24 2.50 1,468 2,572 

Predation 2.29 2.56 1,538 2,692 

Estuary 2.36 2.62 1,630 2,850 

Harvest 2.36 2.62 1,630 2,850 

Ocean ±25% 2.01-2.64 2.27-2.90 1,181-2,026 2,088-3,539 

This is a rough estimate, given the current data gaps and uncertainties, useful simply as 

an indication that if recovery actions are implemented, the population is likely to trend 

toward viable status. As we learn more about this population, implement proposed 

actions, and improve modeling methods, the analysis will be refined. 

82
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

7. Implementation and Preliminary Cost Estimates 

NMFS recognizes that there are significant uncertainties about the underlying biology 

and the best approaches to improving conditions for steelhead. NMFS is committed to an 

ongoing effort to address these uncertainties and work through associated disagreements 

over management approaches as part of implementing this recovery plan. This will 

require rigorous application of an adaptive management process that identifies key 

uncertainties, proposes competing hypotheses, and uses recovery actions and appropriate 

research and monitoring to test these hypotheses and adjust management accordingly. 

Implementation of this plan depends on the voluntary actions and cooperation of local 

entities and citizen groups. An important part of implementation will be working 

cooperatively to develop a detailed research, monitoring, and evaluation plan addressing 

the additional information needs described in Chapter 8. It will be essential that a 

collaborative implementation structure be set up to improve communication and work on 

a shared sense of priorities. 

7.1 Implementation 

NMFS has worked independently with the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Klickitat County, and other local entities to develop the recovery plan 

for the Klickitat steelhead population. NMFS encourages the formation of a planning 

group for the Washington Gorge Management Unit, a forum or entity that would take 

responsibility for coordinating implementation of the plan. Implementing the proposed 

recovery actions for steelhead in the Washington Gorge Management Unit, including the 

Klickitat subbasin, would be a primary task for a Washington Gorge Area Regional 

Board, subject to concurrence by state, tribal and local governments and the opportunity 

for involvement and comment by the public. 

The Washington Gorge Area Regional Board could consist of representatives from 

Klickitat, Yakima and Benton counties, local landowners, and the Yakama Nation. The 

Board could also provide an opportunity for coordination with the Lower Columbia River 

Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB), since the Washington Gorge Management Unit includes 

both the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS and the Willamette/Lower Columbia 

ESUs for Chinook, coho, and chum ESA-listed populations, which are covered by the 

LCFRB. 

The Washington Gorge Area Regional Board could use the considerations identified in 

Chapter 6 to prioritize recovery actions in the Klickitat subbasin and other areas within 

the Washington Gorge Management Unit to respond to the interests identified by various 

stakeholders in the area. 

The prioritization of projects for funding should be based on a balance between the 

biological benefit of the project, its cost, and feasibility of implementation. Projects that 

83
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

address primary limiting factors, have high biological benefit, are relatively inexpensive, 

and are feasible should receive highest funding priority. Projects that have high cost, low 

biological benefit to listed fish species, and relatively low feasibility should receive 

lowest funding priority. 

Funding sources for salmon and steelhead recovery actions in the Columbia Basin are 

varied. They include: 

• Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) (states and tribes) 

• Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) (a combination of PCSRF and 

Washington State funds) 

• Columbia Basin Fish Accords 

• Congressional appropriations (Federal agencies) 

• State appropriations (state agencies) 

• Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program (states 

and tribes) 

• Federal / state grants 

• Non-profit organization programs and grants 

The 2008 Columbia River Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 

the Three Treaty Tribes and FCRPS Action Agencies (Columbia Basin Accords 2008) 

identifies funds for hatchery planning and operations and maintenance covering some of 

the existing and expanded activities in the Klickitat River basin. The MOA identifies 

hatchery capital funds for the design and construction of the hatchery and passage 

facilities in the Klickitat River basin except the Wahkiacus Hatchery facility, and 

includes language that states that the Action Agencies will work toward finding funding 

for this facility. 

7.2 Preliminary Cost Estimates 

Preliminary cost estimates are provided for the three major categories of strategies and 

actions: RM&E, hatcheries, and habitat. The highest priority strategies for the Klickitat 

basin address data gaps (see Section 6-1). As such, these priority strategies fall into the 

category of research, monitoring, and evaluation. The costs associated with these efforts 

are detailed in Chapter 8. Table 8-1 estimates the cost of ongoing and expanded RM&E 

activities to be up to $4,484,402 for years 1 through 3, and up to $15,142,783 for years 4 

through 10. Information gained through filling the priority data gaps will help to refine 

the actions needed to reach recovery. 

Costs for actions to address hatchery-related effects are distributed among research, 

monitoring and evaluation, detailed in Chapter 8, and capital costs and operations and 

maintenance costs that have been included in programs proposed under the NPCC Fish 

and Wildlife Program or are ongoing under that program or the Mitchell Act 

administered by NMFS. Capital costs for hatchery and fish passage improvements are 

shown in Table 7-1, which is drawn from the Klickitat River Anadromous Fisheries 

Master Plan. The plan was submitted by the Yakama Nation to the NPCC to fulfill the 

requirements for step one of a three-step process for the approval of major projects 

84
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

85

(Sharp et al. 2008). The costs are estimated based on the current status of the design and 

may change as the design is finalized. Since these operations and maintenance costs are 

ongoing, they were not included in the future costs of recovery actions (Plummer 2006). 

Table 7-1 Klickitat Subbasin capital construction costs estimates in FY07 dollars (Sharp et al. 2008). 

Description Estimated Cost 

Lyle Falls Fishway Passage Improvements and R, M&E Station $5,750,000 

Castile Falls Enumeration Facility $1,149,000 

Klickitat Hatchery Infrastructure Upgrades with Reform Measures4 $16,100,000 

McCreedy Creek Steelhead (Conservation) Acclimation Site $234,000 

Wahkiacus Hatchery & Acclimation Facility Construction5 $18,400,000 

TOTAL $41,633,000 

Habitat recovery actions, estimated costs, and time frames based on current information 

are listed in Table 7-2. The cost estimates are based on a number of efforts: the 

recommendations and priorities from the NPCC subbasin planning process; expert 

opinion of resource professionals working in the watershed; local knowledge; current 

cost estimates of YN project dollars (e.g., Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project 

activities); and land values derived in conjunction with the Columbia Land Trust. It 

should be noted that the habitat cost estimates below are for Yakama Nation-defined 

MaSAs. For correlation with the ICTRT-defined MaSAs, see Appendix II, Table II-1. 

The total estimated cost for completing all of the habitat projects identified inTable 7-2 is 

estimated to be up to $129,451,630 ($25,890,326.00 for years 1-10, and $103,561,304.00 

for years 11-50). Estimates are expressed in 2007 dollars. Estimated costs are general 

range summaries arranged to align with the Klickitat River Anadromous Fisheries Master 

Plan (Sharp et al. 2008) and Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project. 

The actions listed in Table 7-2 do not include or account for out-of-subbasin effects or 

future degradation or damage to the watershed. 

 

4

 In July 2009, BPA initiated the EIS process for the Klickitat Hatchery Program and Step III of the 

Klickitat River Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan, with an anticipated final EIS document in early 2011. 

5 Fish Accord Agreement language states that the Action Agencies will work toward finding funding for 

the Wahkiacus Hatchery Facility (Columbia Basin Accord 2008, Attachment B).
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table 7-2. Habitat actions and costs for Klickitat steelhead by Major and Minor Spawning Areas. 

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 Upper Klickitat MaSA 

Fish Passage - Culvert 

Replacement 

# of 

installations 

7 $100,000 $700,000 

Instream - Streambank 

Stabilization 

length 

treated in 

miles 

2 $100,000 $200,000 

Instream - Channel 

Connectivity 

length 

treated in 

miles 

12 $65,000 $780,000 

Instream - Channel 

reconfiguration (includes 

channel roughening) 

length 

treated in 

miles 

4 $475,200 $1,900,800 

Instream - Deflectors/ 

barbs 

length 

treated in 

miles 

1 $35,000 $35,000 

Instream - Off channel 

habitat 

length 

treated in 

miles 

1 $105,600 $105,600 

Instream - Spawning 

Gravel Placement 

length 

treated in 

miles 

1 $90,000 $90,000 

Instream - Log (control) 

weirs 

# of 

structures 

10 $2,500 $25,000 

Instream - Rock (control) 

weir 

# of 

structures 

14 $2,500 $35,000 

Instream - Large Woody 

Debris 

# of 

structures 

20 $1,000 $20,000 

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

125 $15,000 $1,875,000 

Instream - Beaver 

Introduction 

# of beavers 

introduced 

20 $350 $7,000 

Riparian - Livestock 

Water Development 

# of 

installations 

3 $6,000 $18,000 

Riparian - Water Gap 

Development 

# of 

installations 

0 $1,200 $0 

Riparian - Fencing miles 25 $10,000 $250,000 

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

200 $2,000 $400,000 

Riparian - Weed Control species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

200 $1,000 $200,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Reconstruction 

miles 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Relocation 

miles 8 $120,000 $960,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Stream Crossing 

Improvements (=Rocked 

Ford) 

miles 4 $1,800 $7,200 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 60 $6,000 $360,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Obliteration 

miles 1 $7,000 $7,000

86
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 

Sediment Reduction - 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

# of erosion 

structures 

15 $1,400 $21,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

60 $600 $36,000 

Upland- Agriculture - 

Fencing 

miles 2 $8,800 $17,600 

Upland- Agriculture - 

Water Development 

# of 

installations 

3 $2,400 $7,200 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Planting 

area treated 

(acres) 

35 $2,000 $70,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

20 $250 $5,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Slope Stabilization 

area treated 

(acres) 

80 $180 $14,400 

Land Protected, 

Acquired, or Leased - 

Streambank Protected 

miles 4 $320,000 $1,280,000 

Nutrient Enrichment - 

Carcass Analog 

area treated 

(acres) 

10 $4,000 $40,000 

Nutrient Enrichment - 

Carcass Placement 

area treated 

(acres) 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 12 $4,000 $48,000 

 $9,514,800 White Creek MaSA 

Fish Passage - Culvert 

Replacement 

# of 

installations 

9 $100,000 $900,000 

Instream - Channel 

reconfiguration (includes 

channel roughening) 

length 

treated in 

miles 

14 $475,200 $6,652,800 

Instream - Spawning 

Gravel Placement 

length 

treated in 

miles 

5 $90,000 $450,000 

Instream - Large Woody 

Debris 

# of 

structures 

150 $1,000 $150,000

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

150 $15,000 $2,250,000

Instream - Beaver 

Introduction 

# of beavers 

introduced 

10 $350 $3,500

Riparian - Water Gap 

Development 

# of 

installations 

3 $1,200 $3,600

Riparian - Fencing miles 6.5 $10,000 $65,000

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

400 $2,000 $800,000

Riparian - Weed Control species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

2 $1,000 $2,000

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Reconstruction 

miles 4 $8,000 $32,000

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Relocation 

miles 12 $60,000 $720,000

87
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Stream Crossing 

Improvements (=Rocked 

Ford) 

miles 0.1 $950,400 $95,040

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 50 $6,000 $300,000

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Obliteration 

miles 5 $7,000 $35,000

Sediment Reduction - 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

# of erosion 

structures 

50 $1,400 $70,000

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

40 $600 $24,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

40 $250 $10,000 

Land Protected, 

Acquired, or Leased - 

Streambank Protected 

miles 2 $160,000 $320,000 

Nutrient Enrichment - 

Carcass Analog 

area treated 

(acres) 

15 $4,000 $60,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 14 $4,000 $56,000 

 $12,998,940 Middle Klickitat MaSA 

Fish Passage - Culvert 

Replacement 

# of 

installations 

1 $250,000 $250,000 

Instream - Channel 

Connectivity 

length 

treated in 

miles 

4.5 $475,200 $2,138,400 

Instream - Off channel 

habitat 

length 

treated in 

miles 

2.5 $422,400 $1,056,000 

Instream - Spawning 

Gravel Placement 

length 

treated in 

miles 

1 $90,000 $90,000 

Instream – Large Woody 

Debris 

# of 

structures 

25 $1,000 $25,000 

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

45 $35,000 $1,575,000 

Riparian - Fencing miles 2 $10,000 $20,000 

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

110 $5,000 $550,000 

Riparian - Weed Control species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

30 $1,600 $48,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Stream Crossing 

Improvements (=Rocked 

Ford) 

miles 0.05 $950,400 $47,520 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 15 $6,000 $90,000 

88
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Obliteration 

miles 13 $80,000 $1,040,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

# of erosion 

structures 

60 $1,400 $84,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

35 $600 $21,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Planting 

area treated 

(acres) 

1280 $450 $576,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

20 $1,600 $32,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Slope Stabilization 

area treated 

(acres) 

10 $1,800 $18,000 

Land Protected, 

Acquired, or Leased - 

Streambank Protected 

miles 2 $640,000 $1,280,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 15 $8,000 $120,000 

 $9,060,920 Lower Klickitat MaSA 

Fish Passage - Culvert 

Replacement 

# of 

installations 

1 $350,000 $350,000 

Instream - Channel 

Connectivity 

length 

treated in 

miles 

0.9 $844,800 $760,320 

Instream - Channel 

reconfiguration (includes 

channel roughening) 

length 

treated in 

miles 

2 $1,161,600 $2,323,200 

Instream - Deflectors/ 

barbs 

length 

treated in 

miles 

35 $35,000 $1,225,000 

Instream - Off channel 

habitat 

length 

treated in 

miles 

0.4 $1,161,600 $464,640 

Instream - Spawning 

Gravel Placement 

length 

treated in 

miles 

2.5 $90,000 $225,000 

Instream - Log (control) 

weirs 

# of 

structures 

10 $2,500 $25,000 

Instream - Rock (control) 

weir 

# of 

structures 

8 $2,500 $20,000 

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

25 $45,000 $1,125,000 

Riparian - Water Gap 

Development 

# of 

installations 

4 $1,200 $4,800 

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

320 $4,500 $1,440,000 

Riparian - Weed Control species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

80 $1,600 $128,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 15 $4,200 $63,000 

89
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Obliteration 

miles 3.5 $60,000 $210,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

# of erosion 

structures 

15 $1,400 $21,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

35 $600 $21,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

120 $1,600 $192,000 

Land Protected, 

Acquired, or Leased - 

Streambank Protected 

miles 4 $800,000 $3,200,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles $4,000 

 $11,797,960 Swale Creek MiSA 

Instream- Wetland - 

Wetland Restoration 

area treated 

(acres) 

3200 $5,000 $16,000,000 

Instream - Channel 

Connectivity 

length 

treated in 

miles 

1.2 $475,200 $570,240 

Instream - Channel 

reconfiguration (includes 

channel roughening) 

length 

treated in 

miles 

17 $950,400 $16,156,800 

Instream - Spawning 

Gravel Placement 

length 

treated in 

miles 

8.5 $90,000 $765,000 

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

55 $15,000 $825,000

Instream - Beaver 

Introduction 

# of beavers 

introduced 

10 $350 $3,500

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

250 $2,000 $500,000

Riparian - Weed Control species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

250 $1,600 $400,000

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 4 $2,200 $8,800

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Obliteration 

miles 4 $60,000 $240,000

Sediment Reduction - 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

# of erosion 

structures 

25 $1,400 $35,000

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

40 $600 $24,000

Upland- Vegetation - 

Planting 

area treated 

(acres) 

800 $450 $360,000

90
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

800 $1,600 $1,280,000

Land Protected, 

Acquired, or Leased - 

Streambank Protected 

miles 17 $320,000 $5,440,000

Nutrient Enrichment - 

Carcass Analog 

area treated 

(acres) 

50 $4,000 $200,000

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 17 $4,000 $68,000 

 $42,876,340 Klickitat Canyon MiSA 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Stream Crossing 

Improvements (=Rocked 

Ford) 

miles 0.1 $316,800 $31,680 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 55 $4,500 $247,500 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Obliteration 

miles 2 $15,000 $30,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

# of erosion 

structures 

50 $1,400 $70,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

35 $600 $21,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 55 $4,000 $220,000 

 $620,180 Lower Little Klickitat MiSA 

Instream - Channel 

reconfiguration (includes 

channel roughening) 

length 

treated in 

miles 

6 $844,800 $5,068,800 

Instream - Spawning 

Gravel Placement 

length 

treated in 

miles 

3 $90,000 $270,000 

Instream - Large Woody 

Debris 

# of 

structures 

20 $1,000 $20,000 

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

18 $15,000 $270,000 

Instream - Beaver 

Introduction 

# of beavers 

introduced 

10 $350 $3,500 

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

160 $2,000 $320,000 

Riparian - Weed Control species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

20 $1,600 $32,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Stream Crossing 

Improvements (=Rocked 

Ford) 

miles 0.1 $950,400 $95,040 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 10 $4,500 $45,000 

Sediment Reduction - # of erosion 35 $1,400 $49,000 

91
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

structures 

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

20 $600 $12,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Planting 

area treated 

(acres) 

800 $450 $360,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

200 $1,600 $320,000 

Land Protected, 

Acquired, or Leased - 

Streambank Protected 

miles 12 $80,000 $960,000 

Nutrient Enrichment - 

Carcass Analog 

area treated 

(acres) 

50 $4,000 $200,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 6 $4,000 $24,000 

 $8,049,340 Upper Little Klickitat MaSA 

Fish Passage - Culvert 

Replacement 

# of 

installations 

1 $125,000 $125,000 

Instream - Channel 

Connectivity 

length 

treated in 

miles 

0.5 $475,200 $237,600 

Instream - Channel 

reconfiguration (includes 

channel roughening) 

length 

treated in 

miles 

22 $475,200 $10,454,400 

Instream - Spawning 

Gravel Placement 

length 

treated in 

miles 

11 $90,000 $990,000 

Instream - Large Woody 

Debris 

# of 

structures 

55 $1,000 $55,000 

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

35 $9,000 $315,000 

Instream - Beaver 

Introduction 

# of beavers 

introduced 

15 $350 $5,250 

Riparian - Livestock 

Water Development 

# of 

installations 

40 $3,200 $128,000 

Riparian - Water Gap 

Development 

# of 

installations 

40 $1,200 $48,000 

Riparian - Fencing miles 36 $10,000 $360,000 

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

800 $2,000 $1,600,000 

Riparian - Weed Control species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

400 $1,600 $640,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Reconstruction 

miles 0.5 $3,000,000 $1,500,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Stream Crossing 

Improvements (=Rocked 

Ford) 

miles 10 $1,800 $18,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 30 $11,000 $330,000 

92
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 

Sediment Reduction - 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

# of erosion 

structures 

20 $1,400 $28,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

40 $1,600 $64,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Planting 

area treated 

(acres) 

12800 $450 $5,760,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

300 $800 $240,000 

Land Protected, 

Acquired, or Leased - 

Streambank Protected 

miles 22 $80,000 $1,760,000 

Nutrient Enrichment - 

Carcass Analog 

area treated 

(acres) 

5 $4,000 $20,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 38 $4,000 $152,000 

 $24,830,250 Upper Middle Klickitat MiSA 

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

30 $28,000 $840,000 

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

40 $5,000 $200,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Reconstruction 

miles 2 $26,000 $52,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Stream Crossing 

Improvements (=Rocked 

Ford) 

miles 6 $1,800 $10,800 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 16 $3,600 $57,600 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

115 $1,600 $184,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 18 $1,500 $27,000 

 $1,371,400 Assumes River Route 

remains in place with only 

drainage improvements; 

estimates do not include 

roads falling under Forest & 

Fish jurisdiction 

Trout Creek MiSA 

Fish Passage - Culvert 

Replacement 

# of 

installations 

3 $250,000 $750,000 

Instream - Channel 

reconfiguration (includes 

channel roughening) 

length 

treated in 

miles 

10 $475,200 $4,752,000 

Instream - Spawning 

Gravel Placement 

length 

treated in 

miles 

10 $90,000 $900,000 

Instream - Large Woody 

Debris 

# of 

structures 

15 $1,200 $18,000 

Instream - Structure/ Log 

Jam 

# of 

structures 

30 $9,000 $270,000 

93
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

94

MaSA Type/Subtypea Unita # Units Cost / Unit Cost 

 

Instream - Beaver 

Introduction 

# of beavers 

introduced 

10 $350 $3,500 

Riparian - Planting species; area 

treated 

(acres) 

60 $3,900 $234,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Reconstruction 

miles 18 $26,000 $468,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Stream Crossing 

Improvements (=Rocked 

Ford) 

miles 5 $1,800 $9,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 25 $3,800 $95,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Erosion Control 

Structures 

# of erosion 

structures 

25 $1,400 $35,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Sediment Traps and 

Upland Erosion Control 

(sediment control basins, 

windbreaks, planting, 

conservation land 

management) 

# of erosion 

structures 

15 $600 $9,000 

Upland- Vegetation - 

Invasive Plant Control 

area treated 

(acres) 

40 $1,600 $64,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 10 $4,000 $40,000 

 $7,647,500 West Fork Klickitat MaSA 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Reconstruction 

miles 0.5 $1,200,000 $600,000 

Sediment Reduction - 

Road Drainage System 

Improvements 

miles 15 $5,200 $78,000 

Project maintenance - 

Site Maintenance 

miles 0.5 $12,000 $6,000 

 $684,000 

a

 from Table 1 in Plummer guidance document 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

8. Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management 

This chapter summarizes current monitoring and research efforts in the Klickitat subbasin 

and also lists additional RM&E needs. Part of the recovery strategy for this subbasin is 

the collaborative development of a monitoring plan to address the additional information 

needs that statkeholders and scientists have identified. 

Comprehensive, empirical monitoring data on fish populations and habitat are needed to 

identify appropriate projects and locations, populate habitat/production capacity 

modeling efforts (such as EDT, AHA, or other appropriate models), and inform adaptive 

management for the salmonid recovery plan. Information on fish distribution, 

abundance, productivity, habitat conditions, genetic diversity, pathogen levels, and other 

population parameters, as well as on population limiting factors, is necessary to help 

direct and evaluate these efforts. A coordinated monitoring program is needed to ensure 

that these various needs, including salmonid recovery planning, are met. 

As part of implementing the Klickitat steelhead recovery plan, a detailed monitoring and 

evaluation program will be designed and incorporated into an adaptive management 

framework based on the principles and concepts laid out in the NMFS’ guidance 

document, Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: 

Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance (NMFS 2007) 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-RecoveryPlans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf. 

8.1 Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management in salmon recovery planning is a method of decision making in the 

face of uncertainty. It is a process of adjusting management actions and/or directions 

based on new information. It means taking an experimental approach to a complex task, 

making one’s assumptions clear, and continuously evaluating them in light of new 

information. It works best when the collection of performance data and methods of 

evaluation are designed to get the information managers need to make sound decisions. 

As outlined in the NMFS Adaptive Management guidance document, several types of 

monitoring are needed to support adaptive management: (1) implementation and 

compliance monitoring, which is used to evaluate whether the recovery plan is being 

implemented; (2) status and trend monitoring, which assesses changes in the status of an 

ESU and its component populations, as well as changes in status or significance of the 

threats to the ESU; and (3) effectiveness monitoring, which tests hypotheses and 

determines (via research) whether an action is effective and should be continued. (These 

three types of monitoring are discussed in more detail below.) In addition, it is important 

to build in some research to illuminate the many unknowns in salmon recovery—the 

“critical uncertainties” that make management decisions all the harder. Critical 

uncertainty research may seem expensive or unnecessary in light of basic information 

needs; however, in the long run, it may reduce monitoring and implementation costs. 

95
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

96

NMFS’ guidance document presents a decision framework that can guide the design of a 

research, monitoring, and evaluation plan. The framework (Figure 8-1) contains two 

basic sorts of questions: (1) questions regarding ESU status (biological viability criteria) 

and (2) questions regarding statutory listing factors and factors limiting recovery 

(limiting factor and threats criteria). Evaluating a species for potential delisting requires 

an explicit analysis of both types of criteria. 

The guidance document contains a more detailed discussion of the framework and 

identifies the specific questions that should be answered to evaluate ESU status. These 

specific questions take the form of a series of decision-question sets that address the 

status and change in status of a salmonid ESU and the risks posed by threats to the ESU. 

The decision-question sets are designed to elicit the information NMFS needs to make 

delisting decisions. For recovery planners, the framework can guide future decisions 

about strategies and actions aimed at achieving recovery goals. 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Evaluation

Status of Viability Parameters

•Abundance

•Productivity

•Spatial Distribution

•Diversity

Status of Statutory Listing Factors ESU Viability Assessment

NMFS will determine an ESU is recovered when an ESU is no longer in danger of extinction 

or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, based on an evaluation of both 

the ESU’s status and the extent to which the threats facing the ESU have been addressed

Major Population Group Status

ESU Status

Population Status:

Listing Factor 1: 

The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range

Listing 

Factor 3: 

Disease 

or 

predation

Listing Factor 4: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

Listin

Other Nmanmaaffectinexisten

Listing Factor 2: 

Over utilization for commercial, recreational or educational purposes

Status of 

Harvest Threats 

& Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Disease 

and 

Predation

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Hatchery 

program’s

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Status of 

Hydropower

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Compliance and 

Implementation Monitoring 

Implement Adaptive 

Management Plan

Action Effectiveness 

Monitoring 

Status of 

Regulatory 

Mechanisms

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Critical Uncertain

Research and Evalu

Status of 

Habitat 

Threats & 

Limiting 

Factors

Actions

NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework

Figure 8-1 NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework.

97
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

8.2 Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Program to Support 

Adaptive Management

Because of the length and complexity of the salmonid life cycle, there are many uncertainties 

involved in improving salmonid survival. Simply identifying cause-and-effect relationships 

between any given management action and characteristics of salmon populations can be a 

scientific challenge. It is essential to design a monitoring and evaluation program that will 

answer these basic questions: How will we know we are making progress? How will we get 

the information we need? And how will we use the information in decision making? 

Designing an effective monitoring program for salmon recovery involves the following initial 

steps: 

1. Clarify the questions that need to be answered for policy and management decision 

making. Include the full ESU and the full salmonid life cycle. 

2. Identify entity or entities responsible for coordinating development of this program. 

3. Identify: 

o Which populations and associated limiting factors to monitor 

o Metrics and indicators 

o Frequency, distribution, and intensity of monitoring 

o Tradeoffs and consequences of these choices 

4. Assess the degree to which existing monitoring programs are consistent with NMFS 

guidance. 

5. Identify needed adjustments in existing programs, additional monitoring needs, and 

strategy for filling those needs. 

6. Develop a data management plan (See Appendix B of Adaptive Management for ESAListed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring 

Guidance (May 1, 2007) http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESARecovery-Plans/upload/Adaptive_Mngmnt.pdf. 

7. Prioritize research needs for critical uncertainties, testing assumptions, etc. 

8. Identify entities responsible for implementation. 

A monitoring and evaluation program will provide (1) a clear statement of the metrics and 

indicators by which progress toward achieving goals can be assessed, (2) a plan for tracking 

such metrics and indicators, and (3) a decision framework through which new information 

from monitoring and evaluation can be used to adjust strategies or actions aimed at achieving 

the Plan’s goals. 

Implementation and compliance monitoring simply check on whether activities were carried 

out as planned, and whether specified criteria are being met as a direct result of an 

implemented action. For example, if a fence is planned for 20 miles of stream corridor to keep 

livestock off the stream banks so that riparian vegetation will rebound, implementation 

monitoring would verify the presence of the fence. Compliance monitoring would take note of 

the presence or absence of livestock in the fenced-off area. 

Status and trend monitoring is a simple compilation of data-based descriptions of existing 

conditions. To be useful in decision-making, the raw data, or metrics, must be reduced to a 

98
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

more directly applicable form or indicator. For example, if the question is “What is the annual 

spawning population size of steelhead in the X River?” the indicator would be total spawning 

numbers of steelhead over one season for the entire river basin; however, the metric, or 

directly measured thing, would be something quite different, perhaps steelhead redds sighted 

on weekly passes over known spawning grounds. Thus, the metric must be processed to 

translate it from the metric data type (e.g., redds) into the indicator data type (e.g., spawners), 

and then reduced to generate the indicator required (e.g., list of weekly counts on spawning 

grounds to annual total for watershed). The ICTRT identified deficiencies in the currently 

available data and/or data-gathering techniques for Middle Columbia River steelhead. These 

are described in Section 10.4, below. 

Effectiveness monitoring specifically addresses cause-and-effect questions. Demonstrating 

the direct and indirect impact of management actions requires supporting all steps in the 

logical chain that connects the action to its expected impact. This chain is rarely short and 

usually contains several hypotheses. For this reason, it’s better to build the effectiveness 

monitoring into the recovery action strategies, with, for example, pilot-scale tests or other 

methods carefully thought out beforehand. Monitoring and evaluation will only provide the 

answers to the questions they were designed to address; they do not provide the framework 

for revising these questions if they are ill-posed, evaluating the assumptions upon which the 

strategy was built, or incorporating learning into future decisions on actions and strategies—

this is the role of adaptive management. 

8.3 Existing Monitoring and Research 

The development of the Klickitat Recovery RM&E Plan should begin by evaluating existing 

monitoring and research programs to determine if they are sufficient to answer the questions 

identified in NMFS’ Adaptive Management for Salmon Recovery: Evaluation Framework and 

Monitoring Guidance. Research, monitoring and evaluation activities currently underway in 

the Klickitat Basin address the following categories: 

Current/Recently Completed M&E Tasks 

Purpose 

1. Status and Trends Monitoring Compilation or data-based description of 

existing conditions and long-term trends 

2. Effectiveness Monitoring Address cause and effect questions

3. Critical Uncertainty Research Gather information to test critical assumptions 

or theories 

There follows more specific information regarding current monitoring and research programs 

being conducted by the Yakama Nation, the WRIA 30 Watershed Planning Implementing 

Governments, and other parties. WRIA 30 Implementing Governments are state and local 

agencies tasked with implementing the WRIA 30 watershed management plan; the Governor 

has designated the Washington Department Ecology (Ecology) to represent state agencies 

(e.g., WDNR, WDFW, WDOH). These programs should be reviewed further when 

developing the final RM&E Plan for recovery, in the context of the NMFS’ guidance. 

99
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

8.3.1 Status and Trends Monitoring 

• Temporal outmigration patterns and relative abundance for wild and hatchery salmon and 

steelhead populations are being monitored annually at 3 rotary screw trap locations 

(upper, middle, and lower mainstem Klickitat). 

• Length frequency and age composition for wild salmon and steelhead populations are 

being monitored at 3 rotary screw trap locations. 

• Temporal and spatial redd distribution for steelhead has been variably monitored 

throughout the subbasin since 1990. 

• Global Positioning System (GPS) locations have been recorded for redds since 2003 by 

the Yakama Nation. 

• Sport harvest is monitored by WDFW and tribal harvest is reported annually by the 

Yakama Nation. 

• Habitat surveys have been conducted by State and private timberland owners using the 

Timber, Fish, and Wildlife (TFW) Ambient Monitoring Protocol since 1996. To date, 

approximately 80 sites on 40 streams have been surveyed by the Yakama Nation, 

including all major tributaries (many with multiple sites) and, multiple sites on the upper 

mainstem Klickitat. Some sites have been surveyed a second time; most sites are planned 

for resurvey on a 5 to 10-year basis. 

• Klickitat County recently completed a study that provides baseline information regarding 

current shade levels throughout the Little Klickitat and Swale subbasins (Aspect and WPN 

2009). This information will serve as baseline information to support long-term trend 

monitoring by Klickitat County Ecology, and the WRPAC. 

• In cooperation with WDFW, an adult monitoring/trapping facility at Lyle Falls has been 

in operation since the summer of 2004. 

• Gravel samples have been collected and analyzed annually from 12 sites distributed over 

the mainstem and major tributaries since 1999. 

• Water temperature has been monitored continuously by the Yakama Nation since 1996 at 

28 sites (36 sites since 2003) distributed throughout the subbasin. 

• Basic water quality parameters have been monitored on a seasonal basis by the Yakama 

Nation since 2000 at most of these sites. 

• Water quality (numerous parameters, including temperature) monitoring is conducted 

annually by the City of Goldendale, Central Klickitat Conservation District, and Ecology. 

• Flow in the mainstem has been continuously monitored by the USGS for 82 years. 

• Flow in the Little Klickitat is monitored by Ecology, the Central Klickitat Conservation 

District, the City of Goldendale, and Klickitat County. Flow was previously monitored in 

the Little Klickitat by the USGS, but was discontinued in 1968. The Yakama Nation is 

also monitoring flow at various sites. 

• A SNOTEL snow monitoring station was established in the Simcoe Mountains in 2008 by 

NRCS and the WRIA 30 Implementing Governments 

http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/maps/Washington_sitemap.html

• Groundwater quality is monitored by Ecology and the City of Goldendale. In addition, a 

study of groundwater quality was conducted in 2005 by Klickitat County. 

• A well database is maintained by Ecology. 

• Groundwater levels have been monitored in Swale Creek since 2001 by the City of 

Goldendale and Klickitat County (Germiat and Flynn 2007). 

100
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

• The status and trends of fish habitat on state and private forest lands are being monitored 

under the State of Washington’s Forest and Fish Agreement. 

• In 2002-2004, approximately 1000 pathogen samples were collected from various sites 

throughout the subbasin; samples were analyzed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) using protocols of the National Wild Fish Health Survey. 

8.3.2 Effectiveness Monitoring 

• Preliminary rotary screw trap efficiency estimates are being evaluated by the Yakama 

Nation. 

• Preliminary adult trap efficiency at Lyle falls is being evaluated by the Yakama Nation. 

• The effectiveness of the State Forest Practices rules are being evaluated under Washington 

State’s Forest and Fish Agreement. 

• Cameras to support video monitoring of passage at Lyle and Castile falls are being 

installed. 

8.3.3 Critical Uncertainty Research 

• Genetic sampling and analysis to date has yielded information regarding genetic 

divergence between hatchery and natural spawning summer steelhead and information on 

potential subpopulations of O. mykiss within the basin (Narum et al. 2006). 

• Critical uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of the State Forest Practices rules are 

being researched under Washington State’s Forest and Fish Agreement. 

• A groundwater availability study was completed by Klickitat County in Swale Creek 

subbasin in 2007. 

• Presence/absence surveys for juvenile and resident salmonids have been completed in the 

majority of subbasin tributaries and in the upper mainstem by the Yakama Nation. 

• Abundance estimates have been completed in numerous tributaries by the Yakama Nation. 

• An EDT reach analysis of spring Chinook was completed in the summer of 2000 and 

multiple EDT model iterations for steelhead were conducted in 2002-2005. EDT was 

utilized to run Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) within the Klickitat by the Yakama 

Nation. 

8.4 Additional Needs 

The following information is a list of preliminary monitoring and research needs that have 

been identified in the Klickitat subbasin. These preliminary needs may be further refined as 

the recovery plan RM&E Program evolves. 

Five primary objectives of future RM&E have been identified: 

A. Monitor Klickitat subbasin fish population’s viability attributes 

B. Monitor Klickitat subbasin habitat conditions

C. Evaluate Klickitat subbasin in relation to habitat limiting factor status

D. Evaluate Klickitat subbasin hatchery actions in relation to limiting factor status

E. Answer key questions/uncertainties

101
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

A. Monitor Klickitat subbasin fish population’s viability attributes 

Adult counts

• Redd counts (spawner surveys) - Regular foot and/or raft surveys will be 

conducted within the known geographic range for each species. Individual 

redds will be counted and their locations recorded using handheld GPS units. 

Counts of live fish of all salmonid species and carcasses will also be recorded. 

Carcasses will be examined for sex determination, egg/milt retention, and 

presence of CWT or PIT-tags or external experimental marks. Scale samples 

will also be taken from carcasses. Spawning ground surveys will be conducted 

for steelhead from late January through early June. Attempts will be made to 

cover the entire known spawning range. Stream reaches will be surveyed 

multiple times during the spawning periods, with most reaches receiving 3 

passes.

• Adult counts at Lyle Falls Fishway adult trap – Trap is currently in operation 

with WDFW as partner. Salmonid species are counted as they are released 

from trap within the Lyle Falls Fishway on lower Klickitat. Trap efficiencies 

will be estimated from floy tagging of fish and recapture in sport fisheries or 

resighting during spawner/carcass surveys. Genetic and scale samples, along 

with fish length, will also be collected.

• Adult counts at Castile Falls Fishway – Adult trap, video monitoring, and PITtag detection equipment will be installed at Castile Falls Fishway (RM 64). 

Adult counts will be used for upper subbasin production estimates, fish-perredd estimates, and Castile Fishway improvement effectiveness monitoring. 

Genetic and scale samples, along with fish length, may also be collected.

• Additional methods for adult enumeration should be investigated.

Juvenile production and survival estimation

• Juvenile production estimation – Floating rotary screw traps located just above 

Lyle Falls (RM 2.8) and at the Klickitat Hatchery (RM 43) will be operated on 

a year-round basis. A rotary trap located above Castile Falls (RM 64.6) will be 

fished seasonally from early summer through fall. Environmental and trap 

data (weather conditions, water temperature and clarity, trap revolution speed, 

and debris load) will be recorded along with bio-data (fork lengths, weights 

and smoltification stage), and additional fish will tallied by species. Trap 

efficiencies will be estimated regularly by mark/recapture trials using fin clips, 

fin markings, and/or PIT-tags. Feasibility of intermittent juvenile trapping on 

lower White Creek will also be investigated (in conjunction with an instream 

PIT-tag detector; juvenile production estimates may be possible).

• Smolt-to-Adult Return estimation – PIT-tagging of wild and hatchery smolts. 

Detection will be at instream detectors (White Creek), screw traps, and 

Bonneville Dam as smolts; at Bonneville Dam, adult traps, and on spawner 

surveys as adults.

102
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Age structure and sex ratio sampling

• Adult scale, sex, origin (i.e., HOF or NOF), and length sampling – at adult 

traps and spawner surveys

• Juvenile scale and length sampling – at screw traps

• Scale analysis – Scale age will be determined by technicians trained in WDFW 

methodology.

Juvenile and resident fish monitoring

• Presence/absence surveys – Electrofishing and snorkel surveys will be used to 

determine presence/absence of fish species in selected tributaries.

• Abundance estimates – Multiple pass electrofishing sampling and snorkel 

surveys will be used to estimate abundance in selected stream reaches, 

including selected habitat enhancement sites.

B. Monitor Klickitat subbasin habitat conditions 

Stream habitat monitoring

• Stream habitat surveys – Habitat surveys will be conducted on approximately 

5-10 stream reaches per year using TFW methodology, Reference Point 

Survey, and Large Woody Debris Survey.

• Spawning gravel/sediment sampling – core samples will be collected from 

approximately 12 sites (in the Klickitat mainstem and major tributaries) per 

year.

• Stream temperature and water quality monitoring – Water temperature will be 

continuously monitored at approximately 36 sites throughout the subbasin 

using thermographs plus approximately 29 sites in the Little Klickitat and 

Swale Creek subbasins. Basic water quality parameter measurements (pH, 

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) will be recorded seasonally (4-6 

times per year) at approximately the same sites. Riparian vegetation and 

effective shade will be monitored (approximately every five years, depending 

on availability of new aerial photography) in the Little Klickitat Basin and 

Swale Creek.

C. Evaluate Klickitat subbasin in relation to habitat limiting factor status

Limiting factors identification and assessment of anthropogenic effects on 

limiting factors identified 

• To date, not all the factors limiting steelhead production in the Klickitat basin 

have been quantitatively assessed. Limiting factors identification and 

assessment of possible anthropogenic effects need to continue in order to 

ensure that actions taken are adequately addressing the factors and threats. 

103
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Fish passage improvement effectiveness monitoring

• Radio telemetry study – This study will radio-tag and monitor movements of 

steelhead and spring Chinook salmon; passage at Lyle Falls, Castile Falls, 

Little Klickitat Falls, and other passage impediments will be evaluated.

• Reach-scale spawner surveys (redd counts) – Spawner surveys in reaches 

upstream of passage improvements will be conducted, as a part of the larger 

ongoing subbasin-wide spawner survey effort, to evaluate culvert replacement 

projects, and passage upstream of impediments (e.g., Castile Falls).

Instream habitat enhancement effectiveness monitoring

• Subbasin-scale juvenile production estimation – Screw trapping and resulting 

wild smolt production estimates will be used for comparison of before and 

after habitat actions. The general hypothesis to be tested is that wild smolt 

production will increase following habitat restoration/ enhancement actions 

(although multiple years of data will likely be necessary to detect any real 

trends in abundance over year-to-year variations). Additionally, in conjunction 

with redd counts and fecundity estimates (derived either from literature or 

proposed hatchery production in the Klickitat), the feasibility of generating 

valid and precise egg-to-smolt survival estimates (before and after habitat 

actions) will be investigated.

• Tributary-scale juvenile production estimation – The feasibility of juvenile 

trapping in lower White Creek for production/abundance estimation (in 

conjunction with instream PIT-tag detector) will be investigated.

• Reach-scale abundance estimates – Will conduct multiple-pass electrofishing 

removal sampling and snorkel surveys in selected reaches or localized sites 

that receive habitat actions. The general hypothesis to be tested is that 

instream habitat actions increase abundance of fish locally.

• Reach, tributary, and subbasin scale habitat quality and quantity estimates – 

The effectiveness of actions designed to improve instream habitat needs to be 

evaluated to determine if actions are effectively improving habitat. If not, 

actions should be modified based on the results of the monitoring and 

assessment to improve effectiveness.

Local technical review panel involvement

• Klickitat Technical Committee – a local technical review panel is part of the 

Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board process for reviewing and 

funding habitat restoration/enhancement projects. 

EDT modeling and/or other appropriate models (e.g., Habitat Assessment Model)

• Incorporate new habitat data – Data from ongoing habitat surveys will be 

incorporated for future model runs.

104
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

• Incorporate new biological data – Data from adult trap facilities, genetic 

analysis, scale age analysis, and harvest estimates will be incorporated for 

future model runs.

• Perform model runs – To assist in identifying sites and/or potential benefits of 

future habitat restoration/enhancement projects.

• Validate Model. 

D. Evaluate Klickitat subbasin hatchery actions in relation to limiting factor status 

Smolt-to-adult return estimation

• PIT-tagging of hatchery and wild smolts – detection at screw traps and 

Bonneville Dam and comparison of wild to hatchery survival rates. In general, 

the hypothesis to be tested is that smolt-to-adult return rates of hatchery 

steelhead adults are not significantly different than wild steelhead adults. 

Differences between hatchery rearing strategies will also be tested. Tagging 

numbers for steelhead are as follows:

• 10,000 hatchery steelhead smolts (from native broodstock for rearing 

study)

• 10,000 Skamania Hatchery steelhead smolts (feasibility and contract 

development will be coordinated with WDFW)

• Approx. 2000 wild steelhead smolts (see also additional PIT-tagging on 

White Creek)

Adult spawner monitoring

• Spawner surveys – sampling of steelhead, coho, and fall Chinook salmon 

carcasses on spawning grounds and estimation of wild/hatchery ratios.

Demographic characteristic comparisons

• Age structure, sex ratio, and length-at-age – Using scale, sex, and length 

sampling that occur at adult traps and on spawner surveys, comparisons of 

these demographic characteristics will be made between hatchery and wild 

returning adults. The hypothesis to be tested is that hatchery adults are not 

significantly different than wild adults in these characteristics.

Genetic sampling and analysis

• Genetic sampling –To gain a thorough understanding of the genetic make-up 

of target stocks in order to maintain long-term genetic variability (within- and 

between-population) and minimize the impacts of domestication on 

supplemented stocks (spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead), samples 

will be collected at adult traps, screw traps, and via electrofishing.

• Genetic analysis – DNA analysis will be carried out by CRITFC geneticists 

under subcontract. Results will help assess the level of domestication and 

105
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

interbreeding between hatchery and wild stocks pre- and post-supplementation. 

As identified in the draft Klickitat subbasin Anadromous Fishery Master Plan, 

summer steelhead will be collected for broodstock at Lyle Falls. A thorough 

knowledge of baseline genetic conditions and dip-in rates by out-of-subbasin 

adults is important in order to adhere to the YKFP genetic guidelines.

Fish health sampling and analysis

• Pathogen sampling – A baseline data set will be augmented by describing 

existing levels of pathogens in wild resident trout and naturally produced 

steelhead in order to determine if supplementation increases the incidence of 

pathogens. YN field crews will collect samples within the range of anadromy 

within the Klickitat subbasin. Samples will be examined for pathogens by the 

USFWS Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center.

Hatchery releases of introduced Species

• Identify the abundance of naturally spawning coho and fall Chinook utilizing 

the spawner surveys, redd counts, and trap data. Ensure that spawner surveys 

for coho and Chinook are extended to cover the full distribution of known 

steelhead spawning. 

• Develop estimates of abundance and productivity of naturally spawning coho 

and fall Chinook. 

• Evaluate the overlap in habitats utilized by steelhead, coho, and fall Chinook 

for spawning and rearing. 

• Evaluate the effects of competition between steelhead, coho, and fall Chinook. 

• Estimate the amount of steelhead habitat displaced by hatchery released and 

naturally spawning coho and fall Chinook. 

• Estimate the effects of coho and fall Chinook on steelhead viability. 

EDT and AHA modeling and/or other appropriate models (e.g., Habitat 

Assessment Model)

• Incorporate new habitat data – Data from ongoing habitat surveys will be 

incorporated for future model runs.

• Incorporate new biological data – Data from adult trap facilities, genetic 

analysis, scale age analysis, and harvest estimates will be incorporated for 

future model runs.

• Perform model runs – To guide supplementation efforts.

• Validate the models. 

E. Answer key questions/uncertainties 

Determine migration behavior, passage delays, habitat use, and life history 

characteristics of steelhead and spring Chinook salmon

• Radio telemetry study – Using radio telemetry techniques, the travel times, 

passage delays, tributary usage, and spawning and holding locations of 

steelhead and spring Chinook salmon will be described. Differences in these 

traits between wild and hatchery steelhead, and summer and winter steelhead, 

106
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

will be determined and will provide a baseline to assess any changes that occur 

following proposed supplementation, and to provide proportional use 

information for abundance estimates that result from redd counts. 

Effectiveness of passage improvements at certain sites can also be evaluated. 

Specific questions that can be addressed include: 

1) Tributary use vs. mainstem use. 

2) Spawning areas, holding phase locations. 

3) Migration behavior/migration phase travel times/spawning site search 

phase distances traveled. 

4) Frequency and consequences of fallback at Lyle Falls. 

5) Amount of delay at Klickitat Hatchery weir. 

6) Amount of delay/passage at Castile Falls. 

7) Post-spawn kelt survival, movement, and emigration.

Methods that will be used are as follows: Fish will be captured at Lyle Falls 

adult trap and implanted with radio tags and PIT-tags; fixed telemetry receiver 

sites will be installed at various locations in the Klickitat subbasin (potential 

passage impediments and major tributary confluences) to detect fish locations; 

mobile tracking (via foot, raft, or automobile) will be employed on a weekly or 

biweekly basis, fish locations will be recorded using GPS receivers, and PIT-tags 

will allow for fish identification after the radio-tag battery expires, Bonneville 

Dam detection, and returning kelt detection. Approximate number of steelhead 

tagged per year would be as follows: 

• 2007 – 50 wild steelhead, 50 hatchery steelhead 

• 2009 – 50 wild steelhead, 50 hatchery steelhead 

This project will be conducted as a cooperative project between YN/YKFP and 

USGS Columbia River Research Laboratory. USGS staff would perform radio 

tag implanting and radio tracking (with assistance from YN staff), as well as 

most data management and analysis, under a subcontract with YN. USGS staff 

would provide and install fixed telemetry receiver site equipment as an in kind 

contribution. 

Determine migration and rearing patterns in White Creek watershed

• Install instream PIT-tag detector on lower White Creek – An instream PIT-tag 

detector would be installed on lower White Creek to detect outmigrating 

juveniles and determine outmigration timing and relative abundance. The 

White Creek watershed has been the most heavily used Klickitat tributary 

watershed by adult steelhead in recent years, yet many reaches go dry due to 

107
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

108

lack of base flows and pool habitat. Determining migration and rearing 

patterns will help assess importance of White Creek vs. mainstem Klickitat 

rearing habitat and help evaluate habitat improvement actions. USGS 

Columbia River Research Laboratory staff would install PIT-tag detector and 

assist with data management (under subcontract with YN). PIT-tagging would 

be conducted by YN staff, with approximately 1500 fish tagged per year via 

electrofishing in the White Creek watershed.

Evaluate Little Klickitat passage frequency

• Reach-scale spawner surveys (redd counts) – Additional reaches in the upper 

Little Klickitat River watershed will be targeted for spawner surveys in an 

ongoing attempt to describe passage frequency of adult steelhead over Little 

Klickitat Falls (RM 6). Adult steelhead have been observed above the falls 

during high flow years, but passage frequency is unknown. This information 

will assist in EDT modeling purposes, and for evaluation of potential future 

habitat projects.

Steelhead rearing study

• Assessment of survival and residualism in hatchery-raised steelhead using 

differential growth regimes – Abundance of wild indigenous summer steelhead 

within the Klickitat subbasin has been depressed for a number of decades. 

Continued releases of a domesticated, non-endemic (Skamania) stock poses 

unacceptable risks to the native Klickitat summer steelhead population. Future 

management actions are proposing to phase out Skamania-origin releases in 

favor of developing a new, integrated hatchery program using Klickitat 

indigenous steelhead as a broodstock source. Goals for the long-term 

development of the program include: 

• Conserve and restore indigenous stock to historical distribution and abundance 

levels 

• Minimize residualism rates 

• Maximize survival and adult return rates 

• Mimic natural growth patterns and size of wild counterparts 

• Improve tribal and sport fishing opportunities 
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table 8-1 Summary of ongoing and expanded RM&E cost estimates (Sharp et al. 2008, Klickitat County, personal communicatio

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 20

YN RM&E Ongoing 

$520,000 $533,000 $546,325 $559,983 $573,983 $588,332 $603,041 $618,117 $633,5

WRIA 30 RM&E Ongoing 

$111,200 $131,500 $41,000 $81,000 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 $81,0

On-going RM&E Subtotal 

$631,200 $664,500 $587,325 $640,983 $614,983 $629,332 $644,041 $659,117 $714,5

YN RM&E Expanded 

$365,642 $374,783 $857,452 $878,888 $900,861 $923,382 $946,467 $970,128 $994,3

WRIA 30 RM&E Expanded 

$ - $85,000 $918,500 $909,000 $1,142,000 $890,000 $945,000 $10,000 $10,0

RM&E Expanded Subtotal 

$365,642 $459,783 $1,775,952 $1,787,888 $2,042,861 $1,813,382 $1,891,467 $980,128 $1,004,3

Total $996,842 $1,124,283 $2,363,277 $2,428,871 $2,657,844 $2,442,714 $2,535,508 $1,639,245 $1,718,9

YN Staff cost estimates assume a 2.5% inflation rate (starting with FY 2008 dollars) Klickitat County cost estimates do not apply an inflation rate 

8.5 Data Management A formal and documented approach to data management is essential to adaptive management. A well-designed dcan help to ensure that data of a specified quality and quantity is available, at a specified time, to meet specified dProtocols, metrics, and other data standardization tools such as common data entry methods are a top priority for 

Coordination across existing monitoring programs and projects will be underpinned by an integrated monitoring 

framework. The framework would, for example, require the use of common methodologies for sample design, davalidation, and data sharing in order to address common questions. Data management systems should be develop

with national and regional efforts for consistency with regional and national data standards. Project implementat

109
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

should be consistent with PCSRF protocols where appropriate and with guidance from 

PNAMP’s effectiveness work group. Further guidance on data management is provided in 

the NMFS guidance document, Adaptive Management for Salmon Recovery: Evaluation 

Framework and Monitoring Guidance. 

8.6 Consistency with Other Monitoring Programs 

This recovery plan will utilize existing monitoring programs to evaluate the status/trend and 

effectiveness of recovery actions within the Klickitat Basin. Specifically, this approach 

should incorporate strategies, indicators, and protocols described in the Yakima Klickitat 

Fisheries Project, the WRIA 30 Watershed Management Plan, the Upper Columbia 

Monitoring Strategy, the Comprehensive Statewide Monitoring Strategy, and Collaborative 

Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP). The development of other 

regional monitoring programs may result in modifications to the monitoring programs used in 

the Klickitat Basin. These other programs, in various states of development, include such 

approaches as Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP). As these 

programs develop more fully, they will provide guidance on valid sampling and statistical 

designs, measuring protocols, and data management. This information may be used to refine 

and improve the existing monitoring and evaluation programs in the Klickitat Basin. The 

intent is to make monitoring and evaluation programs in the Klickitat Basin consistent with 

programs throughout the ESUs and Columbia Basin. 

8.7 Coordination 

Many entities have been or will be implementing recovery actions within and downstream 

from the Klickitat Basin. Monitoring programs to coordinate with include: 

• Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project, 

• NOAA Fisheries RME Program, 

• Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board Program, 

• PACFISH/INFISH Monitoring Program, 

• Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, 

• USFWS, USGS, and BOR Monitoring Programs, 

• WDFW and WDOE Monitoring Programs, 

• Local Underwood Conservation District Monitoring, and 

• WRIA 30 Implementing Governments. 

It is critical that these programs be consulted to emphasize utility, reduce redundancy, 

increase efficiency, and minimize costs. 

8.8 Evaluation Schedule 

Tracking progress or needs for adaptive management in the Klickitat subbasin by evaluating 

information from the recovery plan’s research and monitoring programs could be one of the 

roles of the Washington Gorge Area Regional Board. Appropriate time intervals and 

triggers/goals need to be established to evaluate project implementation, compliance and 

effectiveness, the status and change in status of a population’s viability attributes, the status of 

population’s limiting factors and the evaluation of research identified in the recovery plan. 

110
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

9. References 

Anderson, R. 2004. Little Klickitat River Watershed Temperature Total Maximum Daily 

Load - Detailed Implementation Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Publication Number 04-10-075. Olympia, Washington. 

Anderson, J. L., R. W. Hilborn, R. T. Lackey, and D. Ludwig. 2003. Watershed restoration—

adaptive decision making in the face of uncertainty. Pages 203-232 in R. C. Wissmar 

and P. A. Bisson, editors. Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: sources of 

variability and uncertainty in natural and managed systems. American Fisheries 

Society. Bethesda, Maryland. 

Aspect Consulting. 2007. Hydrologic information report supporting water availability 

assessment, Swale Creek and Little Klickitat Subbasins, WRIA 30. Prepared for the 

Water Resource Planning and Advisory Committee. Project No. 070024-001-01. 

Klickitat County Natural Resources Department. Goldendale, WA. 

Aspect Consulting and WPN (Watershed Professionals Network). 2009. Riparian vegetation 

assessment, Little Klickitat River and Swale Creek. Water Resource Inventory Area 

30. Prepared for WRIA 31 Water Resources Planning and Advisory Committee. 

Project no. 0700024-009-01. Bainbridge Island, WA. 

Bambrick, D., T. Cooney, B. Farman, K. Gullett, L. Hatcher, S. Hoefer, E. Murray, R. 

Tweten, R. Gritz, P. Howell, K. McDonald, D. Rife, C. Rossel, A. Scott, J. Eisner, J. 

Morris and D. Hand. 2004. Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team (CHART) 

Assessment for the Middle Columbia River Steelhead ESU. 

Bauer, H.H. and J.J. Vaccaro. 1990. Estimates of Ground-Water Recharge to the Columbia 

Plateau Regional Aquifer System, Washington., Oregon, and Idaho, for 

Predevelopment and Current Land-Use Conditions. USGS Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 88-4108. Tacoma, WA. 1990. 

Berejikian, B.A. and M.J. Ford. 2004. Review of relative fitness of hatchery and natural 

salmon. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFSNWFSC-61, 28 p. 

BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) and YN (Yakama Indian Nation). 2004. Yakama Indian 

Nation. Draft 2005-2014 Forest Management Plan. 

Bosch, W., W. Sharp, W. Conley, J. Zendt, and J. Woodward. 2004. Klickitat Subbasin 

Anadromous Fishery Master Plan. Prepared by Yakama Nation in cooperation with 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. December 2004. Toppenish, WA. 

Brannon, E.L., and 10 co-authors. 2004. The controversy about salmon hatcheries. Fisheries 

29(9):12-31. 

111
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Brock, S. and A. Stohr. 2002. Little Klickitat River Watershed Temperature Total Maximum 

Daily Load. Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment 

Program. Publication number 02-03-031. Olympia, Washington. 

Bryant, F.G. 1949. A survey of the Columbia River and its tributaries with special reference 

to the management of its fishery resources: Part 2; Washington streams from the 

mouth of the Columbia River to and including the Klickitat River (Area I), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, E. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, 

and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of West Coast steelhead from Washington, 

Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., 

NMFS- 27. 

Chapman, D. 1986. Salmon and steelhead abundance in the Columbia River in the nineteenth 

century. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 662–670. 

Chilcote, M.W. 2001. Conservation Assessment of Steelhead Population in Oregon. March 

5, 2001 Public Review Draft. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, 

Oregon. 83 pp. 

Chilcote, M.W. 2003. Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild 

fish in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1057-1067. 

Cline, D. R. 1976. Reconnaissance of the Water Resources of the Upper Klickitat River 

Basin, Yakima Indian Reservation, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 75-518. 54 pp. 

Conley, W. 2005. Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project, Annual Report for September 1, 

2003 – October 31, 2004. BPA Project No. 1997-056-00. 

Conley, W. 2006. Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project – FY2006 Statement of Work. 

BPA Project No. 1997-056-00 with Yakama Nation. Portland, Oregon. 33 pp. 

Columbia Basin Accords. 2008. Columbia Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement 

between the Three Treaty Tribes and FCRPS Action Agencies. BPA (Bonneville 

Power Administration), Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), USBR (U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the 

Yakama Nation, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 2008. 

Memorandum of agreement among the Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes, 

Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation. Three Treaty Tribes – Action Agency Agreement. April 4. Attachment 

G. Biological Benefits. 

112
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Available at: 

http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Biological_opinions/FCRPS/2008_biop/ColumbiaBa

sinFishAccords.cfm 

Crozier, L. and R.W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for 

differential population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal 

Ecology (2006) 75:1100-1109. 

Crozier, L., R.W. Zabel, and A.F. Hamlet. 2008. Predicting differential effects of climate 

change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring. Global Change 

Biology (2008) 14:236-249. 

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. Washington State’s Water 

Quality Assessment [303(d)]. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html. 

Evenson, R., J. Zendt, and M. Sampson. 2004. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project: Klickitat 

Only Monitoring and Evaluation, 2003-2004 Annual Report. Project No. 199506335, 

47 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00014033-1). Portland, OR. 

Fleming, I.A. 1998. Pattern and variability in the breeding system of Atlantic salmon (Salmo 

salar), with comparisons to other salmonids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 55(Supplement 1): 59-76. 

Frederiksen, C. 2006. Personal communication. 

Garcia, T. 1998. Letter from Terry Garcia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, to 

Ted Strong, Executive Director, Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. July 21. 

Germiat, S. and T. Flynn. 2007. Hydrologic Information Report Supporting Water 

Availability Assessment. Prepared for WRIA 30 Water Resource Planning and 

Advisory Committee. Project number 070024-001-01. 

Gerstenberger, R. 2006. USFS fisheries technician, written communication. 

Gray, S.W. 2007. Determine the Origin, Movements, and Relative Abundance of Bull Trout 

in Bonneville Reservoir. Report March 01, 2006 - February 28, 2007. Document ID # 

P103326. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. 

Gray, S.W. 2005. Determine the Origin, Movements, and Relative Abundance of Bull Trout 

in Bonneville Reservoir. Annual Report. BPA Contract # 000016701, Project # 

WA2003-06500. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Kendra, and D. Ortmann. 1985. Stock 

assessment of Columbia River anadromous salmonids (2 vols.). Bonneville Power 

Administration Project No. 83-335. 1,032 pp. 

113
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team). 2003. Independent populations of 

Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed Evolutionarily Significant Units within the 

interior Columbia River domain. Working draft. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2007. Viability Criteria for 

Application to Interior Columbia Basin Salmonid ESUs. Review draft March. 

Available at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/trt_viability.cfm. 

ICTRT (Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team). 2009. Current Status Reviews: 

Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead ESUs. Volume III: Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). 

Inter-Fluve, Incorporated. 2002. Swale Creek Channel Assessment Project. Report to 

Yakama Nation Fisheries Program. Toppenish, WA. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate Change Impacts on Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB climate Change Report, ISAB 2007-2. May 11, 

2007. 

Jones, E. 2006. USGS fisheries biologist, personal communication. 

Keefer, M.L., T.C. Bjornn, C.A. Peery, K.R. Tolotti, R.R. Ringe, P.J. Keniry, and L.C. 

Stuehrenberg. 2002. Migration of adult steelhead past Columbia and Snake River 

dams, through reservoirs and distribution into tributaries, 1996. Technical Report 

2002-2. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Walla Walla District, Walla Walla Washington, 

and the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

Keefer, M.L., C.A. Peery, and J. Firehammer. 2005. Straying rates of known-origin Chinook 

salmon and steelhead within the Columbia River Basin, 2000-2003. Technical Report 

2005-5. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, 83844-1141, and M.L. Moser, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

Fisheries) 2725 Montlake Blvd, East, Seattle, Washington 98112 for the U.S Army 

Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon and Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Kiona, J. 2005. YN Tribal fishery monitor, personal communication. 

Klickitat Lead Entity. 2006. Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy. 

Klickitat Lead Entity. 2007. Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy. 

Klickitat Lead Entity. 2008. Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy. 

114
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

LeMeir, E. 1952. Report on Klickitat River fishway counts and fall spawning ground survey. 

September 7 to October 26, 1952. Washington Department of Fisheries report. 

Olympia, WA. 

LeMeir, E. H. and J. Smith. 1952. Survey Report Upper Klickitat River System. August 21, 

1952 to September 2, 1952. Washington Department of Fisheries. 

LeMeir, E., H. Wendler, and L. Rothfus. 1957. Stream appraisal of the Klickitat River above 

Castile Falls. July 25-26, 1957. Washington Department of Fisheries report. 

Olympia, WA. 

Maher, F.P. and P.A. Larkin. 1954. Life history of steelhead trout of the Chilliwack River, 

British Columbia. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 84:27-38. 

McClure, M. M., E. E. Holmes, B. L. Sanderson, and C. E. Jordan. 2003. A large-scale, multispecies status assessment: Anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Ecol. 

Appl. 13(4):964–989. 

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. 

Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 p. 

Morris, G. 2007. Yakama Nation, unpublished data. 

Mullan, J. W., K. R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T. W. Hillman, and J. D. McIntyre. 1992. 

Production and habitat of salmonids in the Mid-Columbia River tributary streams 

Monograph I. Leavenworth, WA, United States Fish and Wildlife Service: 489. 

Narum, S., R. Evenson, W. Sharp, A. Talbot, and M. Powell. 2006. Microsatellites reveal 

maintenance of genetic structure between native and introduced steelhead trout in the 

Klickitat River, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:147-155. 

Narver, D.W. 1969. Age and size of steelhead trout in the Babine River, British Columbia. J. 

Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 26: 2754-2760. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. Middle Columbia-Hood Watershed. 

HUC: 17070105, Rapid Watershed Assessment. US Department of Agriculture. 

ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WA/Tech/RWA/Profiles/mid_columbia_FINAL_062107.pdf

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Threatened Status for Two ESUs of Steelhead in Washington and Oregon. Department 

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal Register, 

Vol. 64, No. 57. March 25. 

115
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Biological opinion and incidental take 

statement on 2000 Treaty Indian and non-Indian fall season fisheries in the Columbia 

River Basin. Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006a. Endangered and threatened species: final 

listing determinations for 10 distinct population segments of West Coast Steelhead. Final rule. 

Federal Register 71:3(5 January 2006):834-862. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006b. Interim Endangered and Threatened 

Species Recovery Planning Guidance. Silver Springs, Maryland. July. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery 

Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead. November 5, 2007. Available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/ESA-Recovery Plans/EstuaryModule.cfm. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008a. Supplemental comprehensive analysis of 

the Federal Columbia River Power System and mainstem effects of USBR Upper 

Snake and other tributary actions. NMFS, Portland, Oregon. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008b. Biological Opinion: Impacts of U.S. v 

OR Fisheries in the Columbia River in years 2008-2017 on ESA listed Species and 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat. May 5, 2008. Available at 

https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pcts-pub/pcts_upload.summary_list_biop?p_id=107547

(accessed June 17, 2008). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008c. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Consultation: consultation on remand for operation of the Columbia 

River Power System and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin. 

NMFS, Portland, Oregon. 

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 2003. White Creek Roads Assessment Project – Final 

Report. Report to Yakama Nation Fisheries Program. Seattle, Washington. 

NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2004. Klickitat Subbasin Plan. In 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 2004. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Conservation and Recovery Plan for 

Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct 

Population Segment. September. 

Phelps, S.R., M. Baker, and C.A. Busack. 2000. Genetic relationships and stock structure of 

Yakima River basin and Klickitat River basin steelhead populations. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Technical Report 56, Olympia. 

116
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Plummer, M. 2006. Recovery Cost Estimate Guidance. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

Memorandum, March 10, 2006. 

Raines, M., J. Caldwell, K. Doughty, K. Vanderwal Dubé, K. Kuzis, S. Perkins, E. Salminen, 

and Y. Wold. 1999. Upper Little Klickitat Watershed Analysis. Prepared for Boise 

Cascade Corporation. July 1999. 

Rawding, D. 2006. Personal communication. 

Rounsefell, G. A. 1958. Anadromy in North American Salmonidae. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Fishery Bulletin 58(131):171-185. 

Sharp, B. 2007. Personal communication with YN Tribal elders. 

Sharp, B. 2000. Draft Klickitat Subbasin Summary. Prepared for the Northwest Power 

Planning Council. November 15. 

Sharp, W., C. Fredericksen, W. Bosch, D.J. Warren & Associates, Inc. 2008. Klickitat River 

Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 1988-115-35. 

Yakama Nation Fisheries. Toppenish Washington. 

Shapovalov, L. and A. C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo 

gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to 

Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management. Calif. 

Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. No. 98. 373 pp. 

Spencer, J. 2006. Personal communication. 

Thiesfeld, S.L., R. McPeak, B. McNamara, and I. Honanie. 2001. Fiscal Year 2001 Annual 

Report. Bull Trout Population Assessment in the White Salmon and Klickitat rivers, 

Columbia River Gorge, Washington. Prepared by WDFW and YN under BPA 

Contract #00004474-00001 for Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, Oregon.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 2005

Watershed Analysis Update of the Catherine/Major Creek Area. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/forest/projects/documents/Catherine_Major_Waters

hed_Analysis_OS_Plan_000.pdf

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1994. Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Major Creek 

Stream Survey. Hankin & Reeves R6 Level II Stream Inventory, conducted by D. 

Bawdon and S. Fielding; R. Larson, editor. 

Vaccaro, J.J., and Olsen, T.D., 2007, Estimates of ground-water recharge to the Yakima River 

Basin aquifer system, Washington, for predevelopment and current land-use and landcover conditions: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5007, 

30 p. 

117
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Waples, R. S., R. P. Jones, Jr., B. R. Beckman, and G. A. Swan. 1991. Status review for 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon, United States Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Ward, B. R. and P. A. Slaney. 1988. Life history and smolt-to-adult survival of Keogh River 

steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

45:1110-1122. 

Watershed Professionals Network (WPN) and Aspect Consulting. 2005a. WRIA 30 

Watershed Assessment. Prepared for Klickitat County and the WRIA 30 Planning 

Unit. Goldendale, WA. 

Watershed Professionals Network (WPN) and Aspect Consulting. 2005b. Klickitat Basin 

(WRIA 30) Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for the WRIA 30 Watershed 

Planning Unit (now known as the Watershed Resource Planning and Advisory 

Committee). http://www.klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/Content.asp?fC=19&fD=3. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003. "Fishdist: 1:24,000 (24K) and 

1:100,000 (100K) Statewide Salmonid Fish Distribution." GIS data layer. (M. 

Hudson, data manager). Available from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

600 Capitol Way N, Olympia Washington 98501-1091. 

WDFW. 2008. Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan. Mid-Columbia River Region. 

Prepared by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. April 22, 2008. Olympia, 

WA. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) and ODFW (Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife). 2006. Supplemental Biological Assessment of Incidental Impacts 

to Winter Steelhead Listed Under the Endangered Species Act in 2006-2007 NonIndian Mainstem Columbia River Fisheries below The Dalles Dam. Submitted to 

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 

Washington Department of Game and Oregon State Game Commission. Estimated sport catch 

data 1962-1966 from summary tables cited in Fulton (1970). 

Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board. 2003. Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy for 

Habitat Restoration and Acquisition Projects. Draft. Available at: 

http://www.iac.wa.gov/Documents/SRFB/Monitoring/SRFB_Monitoring_Strategy.pdf

WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2000. Salmon, Steelhead and Bull 

Trout Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 30. Final Report. 

WSDA (Washington State Department of Agriculture). 2006. ESA-Related lawsuits. 

Available at: 

http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/EnvResources/ESARelatedLawsuits.htm#WTCEPA

118
 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

119

(accessed 4/30/06); tables of locations of affected streams: 

http://agr.wa.gov/pestfert/EnvResources/docs/Klickitat%20County.pdf (accessed 

4/30/06). 

Weber, E.D. and K.D. Fausch. 2003. Interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids in 

streams: differences in biology and evidence for competition. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1018-1036. 

Withler, I.L. 1966. Variability in life history characteristics of steelhead trout (Salmo 

gairdneri) along the Pacific coast of North America. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23(3): 

365-392. 

Yakama Nation Fisheries. 2007. Personal communication. 

Yakama Nation Fisheries. 2006. Zendt, J. and W. Conley -- Personal communication. 

Yakama Nation and WDFW. 2005. Unpublished adult trapping data. 

Yakama Nation Fisheries Program. 2003. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project – Klickitat 

Monitoring and Evaluation. 2002 Annual Report. Prepared for the Bonneville Power 

Administration, Project No. 199506335. Portland Oregon. 

Zendt, J. 2006. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project – Klickitat Monitoring and Evaluation. 

2005 Annual Report. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 

199506335. Portland Oregon. 

Zendt, J. and T. Evenson. 2005. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project, Klickitat only. 

Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report 2004. Project No. 199506335. Prepared 

for Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. 

Zendt, J. and M. Babcock. 2007. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project – Klickitat Monitoring 

and Evaluation. 2006 Annual Report. Prepared for the Bonneville Power 

Administration, Project No. 199506335. Portland Oregon. 

Zendt, J. and M. Babcock. 2009. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project = Klickitat Monitoring 

and Evaluation. 2007 annual report. Prepared for the Bonneville Power 

Administration, Project No. 199506335. Portland Oregon. 
Appendix I – Major Creek 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Appendix I. Major Creek 

Major Creek, a small tributary to the Columbia River, lies just downstream of the Klickitat 

River drainage (Figure I-1). Major Creek is believed to support Middle Columbia steelhead. 

This appendix provides an overview of the Major Creek watershed and current knowledge 

concerning steelhead use. Section 5 proposes further research. 

1 Physical Setting

Major Creek drains directly into the Columbia River adjacent to the Klickitat subbasin. The 

Major Creek watershed covers about 28 sq. miles or 7,200 acres of land. Two forks of Major 

Creek, East and West Fork, converge, flowing 4.1 miles downstream to the Columbia River, 

dropping 620 feet in elevation. The West Fork originates at two catch basins at 2,100 feet, 

flowing 5 miles through a narrow box canyon, then through a valley to the confluence with 

the East Fork, losing 1,360 feet in elevation. The East Fork flows from a drainage basin 5.1 

miles through a narrow, v-shaped valley, losing 1,490 feet in elevation, to join the West Fork. 

The Major Creek watershed is under a mix of ownership, including U.S. Forest Service, BIA 

trust lands, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and private landowners. Most of 

the Major Creek drainage lies within the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area and is 

managed by the USFS. It is one of the few riparian corridors connecting the Columbia River 

and the highlands (USFS 2005). Other riparian corridors in the area connecting the Columbia 

River to the highlands include the White Salmon, the Klickitat, and Rock Creek. 

2 Ecosystem Conditions

The main channel of Major Creek in the anadromous reaches averaged 7 percent gradient to 8 

percent at the confluence of the East and West forks. The average gradient in the fish-bearing 

reaches of the West Fork was measured at 8 percent, while the lower section of the East Fork 

had an average gradient of 15 percent. There is a 30-foot waterfall at RM 1.37 on the West 

Fork and another waterfall at RM 1.2 on the East Fork that likely limit upstream O. mykiss

distribution, though precise extent of distribution remains to be determined. 

Major Creek has a relatively straight, high energy, swiftly dropping channel incised into the 

Columbia River basalt layers. Streamside vegetation is relatively dense, and the rate of 

downcutting generally does not seem to be outstripping the rate at which the riparian 

vegetation can stabilize the stream banks. Water quality appears to be high. The Major Creek 

landscape is canyon-dominated with very little road contact, and except for the uppermost 

portion of the watershed, the watershed is very lightly managed. The vegetation is dominated 

by grasslands and oak woodlands in the lower sections, while the higher elevations are more 

forested, with Douglas and grand fir, and some intermittent 

120
Appendix I – Major Creek 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Figure I-1. Map of the Major Creek Subbasin in Southern 

Washington showing steelhead distribution. (YN Fisheries, 

personal communication 2007). 

oak woodlands and hay lands. The riparian areas along the lower stretches of Major Creek 

have a good diversity of oak, ash, alder, willow and big leaf maple. Despite impact from 

human activities, most of the ecological functions are intact (USFS 1994). 

Major Creek has a “flashy” hydrograph, especially during rain-on-snow events. Surface flow 

is at least 1 cfs throughout the driest portions of the summer in all but the first one-quarter 

mile. Low flow to sub-surface flow conditions exist in the bottom one-quarter mile above the 

confluence to the Columbia, mainly due to percolation through alluvial material in this reach. 

Water temperatures in Major Creek exceed water quality standards during the summer; 

however, several springs and numerous large pools help provide cooler rearing habitat. Water 

temperatures in Major Creek range from 0.5oC in the winter to 21.5°C during the summer in 

the upper watershed and from 0.1°C in the winter to 24°C during the summer in the lower 

watershed. Dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH in Major Creek are good year-round. 

121
Appendix I – Major Creek 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Habitat conditions in the Major Creek watershed display impacts from past and present land 

use activities. The largest human impacts on the Major Creek watershed are from SR 14, the 

railroad along the Columbia River, and, in the higher reaches, road and logging impacts. In 

the headwater sections of the West Fork of Major Creek, land clearing for farming and 

residential development has caused habitat fragmentation and loss of wetland functionality. 

The East Fork is still largely owned by commercial timber interests. Clearing, subdivision and 

development have not occurred with similar intensity; however, widespread habitat 

fragmentation has occurred as the result of timber harvest. Years of fire suppression, draining 

and ditching of wet meadows, and other land uses have changed the composition of the 

vegetation, resulting in an absence of large woody debris, a vital component of structure for 

fish habitat in the stream. It is also unclear what effect a seven-mile-long log flume, in 

operation in the early 1900s in Major Creek, had on the channel conditions and blockage at 

the barrier falls (USFS 2005). 

The area of the watershed within the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area (NSA) has been 

influenced more heavily by grazing and forest practices than by residential and agricultural 

uses. Wetlands have been drained and overgrazed, meadow areas converted to agricultural 

land, and large areas of forest cleared. Sedimentation, likely due in part at least to roads and 

timber harvest, has increased over historical conditions, while forest and agricultural 

practices, including the application of fertilizers and herbicides, have had a heavy impact on 

water quality (USFS 2005). Logging is likely to continue to the north and east of Major 

Creek. Grazing still occurs in private, BIA trust, and privately owned timber lands. 

Concomitant impacts of grazing ― bank erosion, sedimentation, loss of fish habitat, and 

reduction in other aquatic life ― are being documented with increasing frequency (USFS 

2005). 

3 Current Status

The ICTRT groups small downstream mainstem tributaries with the closest upstream 

population drainage, in this case the Klickitat River (ICTRT 2003). Thus, steelhead in Major 

Creek are considered part of the Klickitat population of Middle Columbia River steelhead. 

The ICTRT has identified intrinsic habitat within Major Creek, but has not yet assessed the 

population because of lack of data. A barrier identified as a complete block at RM 0.32 in 

earlier subbasin reports and Salmonscape limited previous assessments of habitat in this 

watershed to the very lowest reaches. More recent information provided by the Yakama 

Nation and described in this section suggests that steelhead were able to maneuver this barrier 

under some flow conditions. If so, the ICTRT may conclude after further evaluation that the 

additional upstream habitat contains enough intrinsic spawning branch area to form an 

additional MiSA within the Klickitat population. 

Steelhead, as well as fall Chinook salmon and coho salmon, spawning activity has been 

documented in the lower one-third mile of Major Creek (YN Fisheries, personal 

communication 2007; USFS 1994). Adult steelhead, some with adipose fins, have been 

observed in this same section in spring (R. Gerstenberger, written communication 2006) 

staging below each of the lower falls (E. Jones, personal communication 2006) and attempting 

122
Appendix I – Major Creek 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

to jump the triple step falls (R. Gerstenberger, written communication 2006). O. mykiss have 

been observed up to a natural fish barrier at RM 1.4 on the West Fork and to the natural 

barrier at RM 1.2 on the East Fork (USFS 1994). O. mykiss spawning has been observed up 

to the Old Hwy. 8 culvert/crossing, and fry have been observed as far as 0.5 to 1 mi. above the 

Acme Rd. crossing on the West Fork. Two steelhead redds were observed in the lower 0.25 

miles of the creek in March 2007 (G. Morris, YN, unpublished data, 2007). 

Above the first one-third mile, Major Creek is limited primarily to O. mykiss due to a triple 

step falls with a total drop of approximately 20 feet (G. Morris, YN unpublished data, 2007); 

each step appears to be less than 6 feet (R. Gerstenberger, written communication 2006). This 

barrier was originally used as a complete block in the ICTRT’s intrinsic potential analysis. 

Winter and spring flows are sufficient to enable some steelhead to negotiate the obstacle, and 

steelhead have been seen above the falls, though passage frequency is unknown (YN, 

unpublished data). A steelhead carcass was observed in a pool above the step falls in May 

2006 (R. Gerstenberger, written communication 2006). 

Further field studies need to be conducted in the middle reaches to characterize the habitat and 

potential barriers, as well as to ascertain the uppermost limit of use of Major Creek by 

steelhead. 

4 Potential Limiting Factors and Threats 

This section summarizes potential limiting factors and threats for steelhead in Major Creek. 

Apparent factors limiting steelhead productivity in the Major Creek system include lack of 

adequate spawning gravel in all but the lower 0.32 miles, a lack of large woody debris (except 

for a few large debris jams), and a low pool-to-riffle ratio. The triple falls on the main branch 

of the creek at RM 0.32 form at least a partial fish barrier, as do several falls higher up on the 

East and West forks (at RM 1.2 and 1.4, respectively). Water volume and temperature are 

possibly also issues, particularly in those reaches where the flow diminishes during the 

summer months. Although the canopy of riparian vegetation is intact in much of the 

watershed, there are areas where the vegetation is thin. An open canopy exists in the lowest, 

anadromous reach (RM 0.0-.32), with an estimated 19 percent shade cover, while in upper 

reaches shade ranges from approximately 20 percent (adjacent to private pasture land) to 60 

percent in more densely wooded and/or steep canyon sections (USFS 1994). There is also a 

relative overall scarcity of large trees for future recruitment to provide stream structure and 

cover for adult fish. Lack of LWD, stream bank instability and siltation may also affect 

habitat in the East Fork (USFS 1994). A fairly extensive stream survey was conducted in 

1994, and spawning surveys are conducted sporadically; however, an extensive survey is 

needed to determine the extent of anadromous fish use, and the extent of habitat change that 

may have occurred as the result of the 1996 flood and other floods (scouring, bank erosion, 

debris jams), effects of upland land use, roads, etc. 

5 Management Actions

The Yakama Nation has proposed several actions to address limiting factors and threats for 

steelhead production in Major Creek. The actions propose biological, physical, and watershed 

123
Appendix I – Major Creek 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

124

assessments to gain needed baseline information to determine future restoration and 

protection needs in the Major Creek watershed (Table I-1). 

Table I-1. Needed Actions, Estimated Time to Implement, and Cost for Assessment of Wild Major Creek 

Steelhead Provided by Yakama Nation Fisheries Staff. 

Actions Affected 

Sites 

Time 

to 

Imple

ment 

Time to 

Real-ize 

Bene-fits 

Implementing 

Entities 

Estimated 

Cost 

Implementability 

(L-M-H) 

Comment 

Physical habitat 

assessment: assess flow 

and temperature regime, 

riparian cover, substrate, 

map and quantify stream 

habitat 

Mainstem 

Major 

Creek, East 

Fork, West 

Fork 

< 3 

Years 

5 - 10 

Years 

Yakama 

Nation, 

USFS, 

USGS 

$0 -- 

100,000 

High- Determine location and 

volume of any spring 

inputs 

Biological assessment: 

assess use of watershed 

by steelhead; frequency 

of steelhead passage at 

lower falls; fish species 

composition, health, and 

life history; genetics and 

spawning distribution. 

Entire 

watershed: 

below and 

above the 

falls (RM 

0.3) into all 

of 

accessible 

upper 

watershed. 

< 3 

Years 

5 - 10 

Years 

Yakama 

Nation, 

USFS, 

USGS 

$0 -- 

100,000 

High Actions will provide 

baseline information on 

Major Creek fish 

populations: distribution, 

productivity, life history, 

relationship between 

upper and lower 

watershed O. mykiss and 

relationship to 

ESU/MPG. 

Watershed assessment: 

assess roads, passage 

structures, land use, 

water withdrawals and 

identify potential 

restoration sites. 

Entire 

watershed. 

< 3 

Years 

5 - 10 

Years 

Yakama 

Nation, 

USFS, 

USGS, 

private 

landowners 

$0 -- 

100,000 

High Investigate water 

withdrawal location and 

amounts, including legal 

maximum water rights. 

Investigate feasibility of 

placing/place margin 

structures. 

Entire 

watershed 

3 - 5 

Years 

3 - 5 

Years 

Yakama 

Nation, 

USFS, 

USGS, 

private 

landowners 

$500,000 

– 

1,000,000 

Moderate Margin structures would 

retain some spawning 

gravel patches, would 

create holding habitat 

(slow water pockets) 

and provide cover for 

adult fish heading 

upstream, as well as for 

juveniles moving 

downstream. 

6 Cost Estimates

The Yakama Nation Fisheries staff provided estimated habitat action costs for 

research/evaluation and channel/floodplain modification for Major Creek. Costs over a 10-

year period are estimated to be $0.45 million ($0.15 million for years 1-3 and $0.3million for 

years 4 to 10). 
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Appendix II. Potential Limiting Factors and Threats 

Identified by Yakama Nation Fisheries 

This appendix describes the potential limiting factors and threats identified by Yakama Nation 

Fisheries staff for Middle Columbia River steelhead in the Klickitat subbasin. Limiting 

factors are described qualitatively in relation to the biological needs of the species and threats 

are described as those activities (natural or anthropogenic actions) that lead to the limiting 

factors. 

Yakama Nation Fisheries biologists consider the following conditions to be the top habitat 

factors (physical and biological) limiting the viability of the threatened Klickitat O. mykiss

population. The Yakama Nation staff identified the factors based on 10 years of fisheries and 

physical habitat data, EDT model outputs, and the professional opinion of biologists and other 

scientists working in the watershed. 

• Degraded riparian condition. Riparian corridors have been affected and eroded by 

past, and in some cases current, timber practices, poor road construction and 

management, inadequately sized stream crossings, off-season use of wet roads, and 

cattle grazing in riparian areas. McCormick Meadows, in the tribally designated 

Primitive Area on the upper Klickitat River, was heavily grazed for approximately 60 

years. Compromised riparian conditions reduce channel stability and pool frequency, 

and thus key habitat quantity and habitat diversity, degrading juvenile rearing habitat. 

Reduced riparian cover also affects fish survival and productivity by reducing stream 

shade, which leads to an increase in maximum water temperatures, and by limiting 

recruitment of large woody debris needed to provide future instream habitat 

complexity. Channel instability contributes significantly to increased sediment loads. 

Creation of Bonneville Pool inundated the lower reaches of the subbasin and resulted 

in the loss of critical wetland riparian habitat. 

• Decreased floodplain function and channel migration processes. Abandoned and 

active roads, highways and a railroad prism in the floodplain along the lower Klickitat 

mainstem and lower Swale Creek, and active logging roads in the upper watershed 

confine and harden banks causing channelization, incision of tributaries, disconnection 

of side-channels and river meanders, and other disruption of natural hydrologic and 

riparian processes. 

• Altered hydrology. Increased peak flows and diminished base flows in several parts of 

the subbasin have degraded habitat for fish. White Creek, Swale Creek, the Little 

Klickitat River and many of its tributaries have been identified as having insufficient 

instream flows to support fish populations (anadromous and resident). Swale Creek 

and six reaches on the Little Klickitat, Blockhouse, Bloodgood, Bowman and Mill 

creeks were considered “water quality impaired” on the 1998 state 303(d) list for 

instream flows. 

125
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

• Degraded channel structure and complexity. In-channel large woody debris in the 

watershed has declined as a result of reduced recruitment potential (from bank 

hardening and historical riparian logging), historical “stream cleaning,” and altered 

hydraulic conditions associated with increases in peak runoff and channel 

simplification. This reduction of in-channel structure and its concomitant effects has 

deprived fish of needed hiding, resting and rearing habitat. 

• Obstructions to fish passage and connectivity. A number of culverts in the subbasin 

block fish passage. Reduced low flows have led to loss of connectivity of habitats in 

some streams, effectively cutting off migratory paths and isolating fish. High 

temperatures during low flow periods effectively act as barriers preventing fish from 

moving between spawning, rearing and migration habitats. Historical torrents 

associated with road crossing failures may have exacerbated passage difficulties in 

localized areas (e.g. lower Trout Creek). 

• Altered sediment routing. Sediment loads (the percentage of fines in spawning gravel, 

embeddedness and turbidity) in the Klickitat have increased over historical conditions. 

Actions contributing to increased sediment delivery include forest practices (skidding 

and road building, clearing of upland forests and stream banks), agricultural practices 

(rill irrigation, streamside grazing) and land clearing and excavation in or near riparian 

areas related to residential and commercial construction. Increased sediment loads are 

a key problem for steelhead, particularly during the egg incubation stage. In addition, 

runoff from Mt. Adams’ glaciers, carried downstream by such streams as Big Muddy 

Creek, is a significant source of natural sediment in the Klickitat River. 

• Degraded water quality, including water temperatures. While most of the mainstem 

Klickitat and most tributaries maintain fairly healthy temperatures for anadromous 

fish, elevated summer and in certain reaches extremely low winter stream 

temperatures restrict steelhead production in several areas. Reaches on the East 

Prong, West Prong and mainstem Little Klickitat River, Butler Creek (a major 

tributary to the Little Klickitat) and Swale Creek were listed on WDOE’s 1998 303(d) 

list for temperature (Anderson 2004; Brock and Stohr 2002). Nine reaches on these 

streams violated thermal water quality criteria. Degraded channel and riparian 

conditions, reduced summer low flows and lack of shading are presumed to exacerbate 

the elevated temperatures, though temperatures in some water bodies may naturally 

exceed state water quality criteria. Reduced flows, lack of pools and inadequate 

riparian cover also contribute to unfavorably low temperatures and the formation of 

anchor ice in some stream sections, particularly in the uppermost mainstem Klickitat 

and Diamond Fork. 

126
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

• Altered food web ─ decreased salmon carcasses and subsequent reduction of 

nutrients. Diminishing run sizes limit salmon carcasses, a critical source for marinederived nutrients, from enriching streams, negatively affecting food availability in the 

upper watershed. 

Primary Limiting Factors identified through EDT Analysis 

Yakama Nation Fisheries staff recently identified limiting factors for steelhead in 11 areas of 

the Klickitat subbasin based on EDT analysis. Results for summer and winter steelhead are 

combined due to difficulties in distinguishing run timing, abundance, and spawning and 

rearing areas for the two runs. 

To conduct their analysis, Yakama Nation Fisheries scientists grouped EDT reaches that had 

been previously established during the subbasin planning process into larger spawning areas. 

They identified 6 major spawning areas and 5 minor spawning areas based on 

geomorphologic and biological considerations, as well as survey data representing habitat 

accessible or potentially accessible to anadromous and resident fish. 

The spawning areas delineated by Yakama Nation Fisheries staff differ in some respects 

from those identified by the ICTRT for Middle Columbia River steelhead within the Klickitat 

subbasin. However, the differences are not substantial in terms of the distribution of 

relatively contiguous reaches with moderate to high historical production potential. Table II1 compares the areas delineated by the ICTRT and Yakama Nation. The spawning area 

delineations diverge primarily in the Yakama Nation’s Klickitat Canyon and Upper Middle 

Klickitat MiSAs. The ICTRT considers Surveyors Creek its own MiSA, which does not 

contain branched habitat from the mainstem Klickitat River, whereas the Yakama Nation 

includes lower Surveyors Creek with Klickitat River mainstem reaches above the hatchery in 

the Klickitat Canyon MiSA. The Yakama Nation’s Upper Middle Klickitat MiSA overlaps 

with the ICTRT’s Middle Mainstem MaSA (HUC boundaries) between the Summit and 

White Creek confluences with the mainstem Klickitat, but does not contain ICTRT-modeled 

branched intrinsic habitat. 

127
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table II-1. Correlations between ICTRT Major and Minor Spawning Areas for Klickitat Steelhead, and 

Yakama Nation Fisheries Klickitat Spawning Areas in Order of Priority. 

ICTRT Klickitat Steelhead Spawning Areas YN Klickitat Steelhead Spawning Areas

Upper Mainstem MaSA6 Upper Klickitat MaSA 

White Creek MaSA White Creek MaSA 

Middle Mainstem MaSA7 Middle Klickitat MaSA 

Lower Mainstem MaSA Lower Klickitat MaSA 

Upper Little Klickitat MaSA Upper Little Klickitat MaSA 

West Fork Klickitat MaSA West Fork Klickitat MaSA 

Trout Creek MiSA Trout Creek MiSA 

Lower Little Klickitat MiSA Lower Little Klickitat MiSA 

Swale Creek MiSA Swale Creek MiSA 

Surveyors Creek MiSA8 Klickitat Canyon MiSA 

Upper Middle Klickitat MiSA 

Yakama Nation Fisheries staff ran the EDT model using their newly defined MaSAs and 

MiSAs to identify those areas with the highest restoration or protection potential based on the 

primary limiting factors acting upon those areas. The EDT run confirmed that the dominant 

limiting factors by reach previously identified in other assessments were consistent. Table II2 is a qualitative assessment of the relative combined impact of all limiting factors across all 

life history trajectories in all stream reaches by MaSA on steelhead survival based on EDT. 

The scenario modeled was that of “no passage” at Castile Falls, meaning that the habitat 

above Castile Falls is not yet seeded (current conditions). 

In addition to EDT modeling results, field biologists and geomorphologists have identified 

physical degradations (such as in fluvial geomorphology) that may be contributing to limiting 

biological production of Klickitat steelhead and may need to be addressed to restore properly 

functioning conditions in the watershed. 

 

6

 The MaSA identified by Yakama Nation Fisheries staff is similar, but begins at the top of Castile Falls (0.8 RM 

above the confluence with the West Fork Klickitat). 7

 The Middle Klickitat MaSA identified by Yakama Nation Fisheries staff is relatively congruent with the 

ICTRT’s Middle Mainstem MaSA, but does not include the watershed area between the Summit and White 

Creek confluences with the mainstem Klickitat. 

8

 The Klickitat Canyon MiSA as identified by Yakama Nation Fisheries encompasses the Klickitat River 

mainstem from the Klickitat Hatchery to the base of Castile Falls and includes Surveyors Creek. 

128
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

129

Table II-2. EDT Strategic Priority Summary for Protection and Restoration of Klickitat Steelhead by the 

Yakama Nation’s Identified MaSAs and MiSAs, and Primary Limiting Factors Note: The major and 

minor spawning areas used in the EDT analysis input were identified by the Yakama Nation Fisheries 

staff, and differ from those MaSAs and MiSAs identified by the ICTRT for recovery planning purposes 

(Table II-1 above).

Klickitat River Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary

Attribute class priority for restoration

Klickitat Canyon

Lower Klickitat

Lower Little Klickitat

Middle Klickitat

Swale Cr.

Trout Cr.

Upper Klickitat

Upper Little Klickitat

Upper Middle Klickitat

West Fork Klickitat R.

White Cr.

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Spawning area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Major or minor spawning area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation

Limiting Factors and Threats in ICTRT Spawning Areas 

Tables II-3 through II-12 show the limiting factors and threats identified by Yakama Nation 

Fisheries biologists within each of the ICTRT’s major and minor spawning areas. 

Information used to identify these factors and threats came from several sources: 1) the 

analysis completed through the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 2004 subbasin 

planning process; 2) the Klickitat Lead Entity process performed under the Washington State 

Salmon Recovery Planning process, SB2496; 3) and a Yakama Nation 2005 EDT model run 

incorporating major spawning areas. The tables provide for each area: limiting factors, 

problem location, VSP parameters and life stages affected, threats, significance and severity 

of the problem, and actions needed to address the problems. 

The “predation” limiting factor is generated from EDT model parameters. Specific predation 

studies that were used to develop the EDT “predation” attribute and rule making can be found 

at www.mobrand.com and include Weber and Fausch (2003). 
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table II-3. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the Upper Mainstem MaSA (provided by Yaka

Staff).

Limiting Factor/s VSP Parameters Impacted Affected Sites Threats Life Stages Affected Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Blocked or impaired passage 

Spatial structure Culverts on several 

tributary streams 

Obstruction of juvenile, and possibly adult, movement at culverts. 

PM At least one partial barrier culvert near the mouth of Piscoe 

Creek and 3 more possible barriers upstream, and a partial barrier near the mouth of McCreedy Creek may be replaced by BIA timber sale improvement plan. 

Altered sediment 

routing 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Chaparral Creek, McCreedy Creek, Piscoe, Diamond Fork, Coyote, Butte Meadows, Klickitat R. from Castile Falls (RM 65.75) to RM 87.05 

Increased road densities and drainage extension; ORV trail use. 

E, F Point source delivery of fine sediment from roads; stream bank 

mass wasting. High impact in McCreedy, mainstem from RM 71.49-75.36, RM 76.99- 87.05, and Diamond Fork RM 0 - 12.22, in Piscoe Creek and Butte Meadows; moderate impact on F from RM 8.76-12.22 of Diamond Fk., E and F stages in Coyote, and on E in Klickitat mainstem RM 65.78-68.82; extreme impact on E stage in Coyote Creek Actions will decrease run-off/peak flows and sediment introduction, decrease interception and incision of shallow groundwater flows, and restore valley-bottom morphology and potential for channel migration. Spawning and rearing habitat will be improved; egg-to-fry survival will increase. 

Degraded water quality, water temperatures 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Piscoe Creek, Chaparral Creek, Diamond Fork, Coyote Creek 

Road densities; floodplain roads; past grazing. 

R0, I0-1, R1, R2+ 

Lack of riparian canopy and pool habitat. High temperatures during summer low flows and formation of anchor ice in winter caused by lack of cover and pools limit productivity. High impact on R0, R1 in Piscoe and Chaparral; moderate impact in Diamond Fk., in Klickitat mainstem RM 8.76-10.04)., and on I0-1 and R1 in Coyote; moderate impact on R1 and R2+ in upper Diamond Fk. Rearing habitat, juvenile survival will be improved. 

Channel instability , loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes, degraded riparian condition 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Chaparral Creek, Coyote Creek, McCreedy Creek, Butte Meadows Creek, Klickitat R. from Castle Falls (RM 65.75) to RM 87.05, Upper Diamond Fork 

Historical grazing; channel confinement due to armoring; streamside ORV trails (avulsion risk), roads, road failures. 

S, E, F Extreme impact on E in Coyote; high in Chaparral, upper 

Piscoe and upper Diamond Fk., and from RM 75.36 - 87.05; moderate on S and F, and on E in Butte Meadows, from Chaparral to McCreedy, McCreedy Creek and upper Diamond Fork. Actions will lead to improved floodplain connectivity, pool quality, gravel sorting and stability, thus increasing available refugia, improving rearing habitat, and juvenile and egg-to-fry survival. 

Reduced key habitat quantity from lost floodplain function and channel migration processes, degraded riparian condition 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat River from RM 70.5 to RM 87.05, Piscoe Creek, Diamond Fork, Butte Meadows Creek, Chaparral Creek 

Hydroconfinement; floodplain roads; historical overgrazing. Potential habitat fragmentation. 

S, E, F, R0, I0-1, M1, R1, R2+, M2+, PM, PH

High impact on all life stages except TR2+ in upper reach of Diamond Fk.; moderate impact on all except TR2+ (high impact on S, E, PH) in lower Diamond Fk.; moderate on all except TR2+ in upper Piscoe and high impact on PH; moderate impact on E stage in Chaparral and S and E stages in Butte Meadows. Improved side-channel habitat, pool quality and quantity will 

130
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Life VSP Parameters Limiting Factor/s Affected Sites Threats Impacted Stages Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Affected

improve rearing habitat and juvenile growth and survival.Numerous private sections in the upper portion of the Diamond Fork watershed were purchased by a developer. WaDNR parcels that are currently in State Lands could be reclassified as Natural Areas. 

Reduced habitat diversity, riparian condition, floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat River from RM 70.5 to RM 87.05, Piscoe Creek, Diamond Fork, Butte Meadows Creek, Chaparral Creek 

See above. S, F, R0, 

I0-1, R1, M1, R2+ 

Moderate impact on S, F, I0-1, M1, R1 in upper Piscoe, lower Diamond Fork; high impact on F and moderate on all I0-1 stages in Coyote Creek, moderate impact on S in Diamond, and S and F in Chaparral. 

Reduced food web Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat River from RM 70.5 to RM 87.05, Chaparral Creek, Diamond Fk., Piscoe Creek 

Loss of salmon carcasses. F, I0-1, R1 Greater impact of reduction in food web on fry colonization in 

mainstem than in tributaries. Moderate impact on F from Castile to Diamond Fk., lower Chaparral, upper Piscoe, also on I0-1 in lower Diamond Fk. Reducing sediment inputs will increase aquatic insect production for food. Carcass analogs may provide a temporary food source for juveniles. Actions will improve primary and secondary productivity by improving substrate conditions. 

Harassment/ poaching Abundance Upper Klickitat 

mainstem 

Illegal harvest. S, PH Infrequent/episodic occurrence but with moderate to high 

impact when it does occur. 

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage. 

131
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table II-4. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the White Creek MaSA (provided by Yakama N

VSP 

Parameter 

Impacted 

Life Stages Limiting Factor Affected Sites Threats Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Affected*

Altered hydrology Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

White Creek to RM 1.46, RM 9,59 - 13.88; Brush Creek; Tepee Creek, and NE tributary to Tepee Creek (less impact than the rest of Tepee Creek) 

Past riparian logging; some stream cleaning; floodplain roads. 

F, R0, I0-1, R1 Channel incision resulting in reduced perennial and 

hyporheic flows; scour of spawning gravels, incision related to increased peak flows. Reduced LWD. Moderate impact on F in White Creek RM 0 -1.46, RM 2.40 - 13.88, upper Tepee, in NE trib. and W. Fk.; moderate on R0 in White Creek RM 2.40 m – 10.6., in Brush and Tepee; moderate on I0-1 in Brush from RM 3.46 – 8.03, in White Creek RM 4.86-9.59, RM 10.42 – 13.88, in NE trib., to RM .19, in Tepee from RM 3.58-9.91; moderate on R1 in White Creek RM 4.86-9.59 and R, 10.42-10.60. Egg-to-smolt survival ratio is closely related to summer flow conditions. 

Reduced key habitat quantity, floodplain function and channel migration processes, degraded riparian condition 

Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

White Cr to RM 1.46, RM 2.4 - RM 16.3; Brush Creek; Tepee Creek 

Past riparian logging; some stream cleaning; road densities and floodplain roads. Potential habitat fragmentation via subdivision, landclearing, and development. 

S, E, F, R0, I0-1, M1, R1, R2+, M2+, PM, PH 

Channel simplification and disconnected floodplain sidechannels due to incision. Reduced LWD. Increased run-off. High impact on S and E in White Creek RM 0 -1.46 and in Brush Creek to RM 3.46; on S, E, F and R0 in White RM 10.42-13.88, and E, F, R0 in Brush Creek RM 3.46-8.03, , in Tepee (also on PH) and upper White; moderate impact on other affected stages in Brush, upper White and Tepee. Loss of spawning gravel (habitat) below Brush Creek due to scouring. Rearing limited from Brush Creek to above the IXL road. Lack of perennial flows. Actions would reduce incision; restore channel roughness and complexity to better handle peak flows and augment base flows; increase pool abundance and rearing capacity; improve sorting of sediments and gravel retention. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

Reduced habitat diversity, lost floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

White Creek to RM 1.46, RM 4.86 - 16.3; Tepee Creek; W. Fork White Creek 

Primarily road densities and floodplain roads. Potential habitat fragmentation via subdivision, landclearing, and development. 

S, F, R0, I0-1, R1, M1, R2+, M2+ 

Channel simplification and disconnected floodplain due to incision. Reduced LWD, increased run-off. High impact on F in White Creek RM 4.86 - 9.59; moderate impact on S, F, R0 and I0-1 in White Creek to RM 1.46 and RM 2.40 – 4.86; moderate also on I0-1, R1, M1, R2+, M2+ RM 4.86-9.59. Loss of spawning and rearing habitat. 

132
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

VSP Life Stages Limiting Factor Parameter Affected Sites Threats Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Affected* Impacted 

Blocked or impaired passage 

Abundance, 

spatial structure

White Creek RM 4.86 -9.59; Tepee Creek; NE tributary to Tepee Creek; Fork White Creek 

Inadequate culvert sizing and installation at 2.7 miles upstream of IXL road crossing in upper White Creek 

E, R0, R1, R2+, (to a lesser degree M1, M2+), TR2+ 

Upstream movement of juveniles from rearing habitat to perennial refugia limited. Moderate impact. 

Altered sediment 

regime 

Abundance, 

productivity 

White Creek to RM 1.46, RM 9– headwaters; Brush Creek; NE tributary to Tepee Creek; W. Fork White Creek 

Point source delivery of fine sediment associated with road drainage. 

S, E, I0-1 High impact on E in upper Brush, White Creek RM 9 -

headwaters, in Tepee, NE Trib., and W. Fork, moderate in upper White and lower Brush. Potential additional minor contribution of sediment from aerial deposition due to road traffic. 

Degraded water quality, water temperature 

Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

White Creek to RM 1.46; RM 4.86 - RM 16.3; Brush Creek; Tepee Creek; W. Fork White Creek 

Past riparian logging; some stream cleaning; Land use practices that increased run-off (primarily from road densities) and floodplain roads; channel incision. 

S, E, F, R0, R1, R2+

Reduced perennial and hyporheic flows, reduced riparian canopy. Reduced LWD. Extreme impact on E in upper Brush; high impact on E in the mouth of White Creek and from Brush Creek to ~16 mi. upstream, in W. Fork, Tepee, and upper Brush; also extreme on S and R0 and high impact on E, F, R1 and R2+ life stages in W. Fork White to RM 1.91 

Reduced food web Abundance, 

productivity 

White Creek to RM 1.46, RM 9.59 - RM 13.88; Brush Creek; Tepee Creek; NE tributary; W. Fork White Creek 

Reduced LWD from past riparian logging, some stream cleaning; increased run-off (primarily from road densities) and floodplain roads. 

F, R0, I0-1, R1 Potential reduction in macroinvertebrate densities due to low 

flows or lack of perennial flow upstream and high fine sediment load. High impact on F in upper Tepee; moderate impact on F in lower White, lower Brush, lower Tepee, White from Brush to ~16 mi. upstream and in lower W. Fork; moderate on I0-1 from bottom of 1st meadow to Tepee, (also 

on R1) in upper Tepee 

Reduced floodplain function and channel migration processes, channel stability 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Mainstem White from ~RM 3 to IXL Road; Tepee Cr from mouth to ~RM 10; Brush Creek from mouth to ~RM 8. 

Channel incision. E, F, I0-1 Moderate impact on affected life stages. 

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage. 

133
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table II-5. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the Middle Mainstem MaSA (provided by YakaStaff). 

Limiting Factor VSP Parameters Impacted Affected Sites Threats Life Stages Affected* Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Altered sediment 

routing 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. from Little Klickitat River to Dead Canyon. (RM 20.44 – RM 31.46); Dead Canyon; Beeks Canyon; Summit Creek; Klickitat R. from Summit Creek to White Creek (RM 37.73 – 40.27) 

Increased road densities and drainage extension; delivery of fine sediment from upstream tributaries (primarily glacial, but also from road runoff). 

E, F, I0-1, R0, R1, R2+, TR2+ 

High impact on E, F, I0-1 in mainstem from Beeks to Summit, Dead Canyon, Summit; moderate from Little Klick to Beeks. Road densities contribute to turbidity and clog interstitial spaces, interfering with rearing and feeding. 

sdas

Reduced key habitat quantity, reduced floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. from Little Klickitat R. to Summit Creek (RM 20.44-RM 37.73), Summit Creek to Hatchery (RM 37.73 – 42.5); Dead Canyon, Summit Creek

Hydroconfinement. Habitat 

fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, E, F, R0, I0-1, M1, R1, R2+, M2+, PH

Channel simplification and disconnected sidechannels. Reduced LWD. High impact on S and E in Beeks and Summit, on E, F and R0 in Dead Canyon; moderate impact in Klickitat R. from RM 20.44-31.46; moderate on S and F in lower Dead Canyon, on R1, PM and holding in Dead Canyon RM 5-3.54, moderate on PH from RM 20.44-37.73 in mainstem Klickitat. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

cSgh

Reduced habitat diversity, loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. from Little Klickitat River to Summit Creek (RM 20.44-RM 37.73) and Summit Creek to Hatchery (RM 37.73 – 42.5); Dead Canyon 

Hydroconfinement; floodplain infrastructure; historical overgrazing. Habitat fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, F, R0, I0-1, R1, M2+ 

Channel simplification and disconnected sidechannels. Moderate impact on S and F in mainstem Klickitat RM 20.44- 25.95 and Summit Creek, moderate on F in lower Dead Canyon; moderate on F, R0 and I0-1 in Dead Canyon RM 2.55-3.54. Actions would create refugia. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

cSgh

Degraded water quality, water temperature 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Beeks Canyon; Dead Canyon to RM 2.55

Road densities, floodplain roads; possibly some grazing and past riparian logging impacts. 

S, E, F, R0 Lack of riparian canopy and pool habitat; reduced 

perennial and hyporheic flows, sediment load. High impact on E in Beeks, moderate in Dead Canyon, moderate on S from RM 31.46-37.73 in the mainstem Klickitat 

nccr

f

Harassment/ poaching Abundance Klickitat R. from 

Little Klickitat R. to 

Post-release mortality from fishing, poaching of wild fish, byS, PH, PM Moderate impact 

t

134
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

VSP Parameters Life Stages Limiting Factor Affected Sites Threats Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Impacted Affected*

Summit Creek (RM 20.44-RM 37.73);

catch during whitefish season s

Altered hydrology Abundance, 

productivity 

Dead Canyon; Summit Creek (also Beeks Canyon historically) 

Reduction in forest canopy; incision of headwater (non-fishbearing) reaches; reduced forest and floodplain storage. 

F, R0 Altered watershed hydrology; shorter flow duration 

(low flows), higher peak flows, and increased incision. High impact on R0 in lower Dead Canyon, moderate on F and R0 in Dead Canyon RM 2.55-3.54 (low flows); I0-1 stages affected by higher peak flows. 

w

Predation Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat River to Summit Creek (RM 20.44-RM 37.73); Summit Creek to Hatchery (RM 37.73 – 42.5) 

High density of hatchery-origin smolts; dewatering. 

F, R0 Dewatering intensifies impact from avian and 

terrestrial predators. Moderate impact 

Crta

Competition with hatchery fish 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. from Little Klickitat R., to Summit Creek (RM 20.44-RM 37.73), Summit Creek to Hatchery (RM 37.73 – 42.5) 

High density of hatchery-origin smolts (coho, fall Chinook salmon and steelhead); size of O.mykiss smolts released; fall Chinook salmon releases may also be an issue. 

R0, R1, R2+ Moderate impact. 

R0 affected by fall Chinook salmon releases. 

S

Channel instability, loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes; degraded riparian condition 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. from Little Klickitat River to Summit Creek (RM 20.44-RM 37.73), Summit Creek to Hatchery (RM 37.73 – 42.5) 

Channel confinement; armoring of embankment adjacent to road. 

S, E Channel confinement: stream too (artificially) stable 

laterally causing vertical instability. Moderate impact 

pfsVncC

Blocked or impaired passage 

Abundance Tributary mouths Lack of access to spawning 

tributaries. 

PM High impact in low water years; likely occurred 

naturally, but human impacts have likely increased frequency 

Srm

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage. 

135
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table II-6. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the Lower Mainstem MaSA (provided by Yakam

Staff). 

Limiting Factor VSP Parameters Impacted Affected Sites Threats Life Stages Affected* Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Reduced key habitat quantity, loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes; degraded riparian condition 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. to top of Bonneville Pool (to RM 1.19); Snyder Creek to RM 1.57 

Inundation by Bonneville Pool, anthropogenic influences e.g. hydroconfinement, alteration of riparian zone by road, railroad prism and Snyder Creek mill complex; habitat fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, E, F, I0-1, R1, R2+, M2+, PH, PM

Extreme impact on I0-1, R1, R2+ in impounded lower reach of Klickitat R. to RM 1.19; extreme impact on PH and high impact on F, I0-1, R1, R2+, M2+ and PM in Snyder Creek to RM .58; high impact on S, E and PH in Snyder within mill flume reach. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

nfrraedw

Reduced habitat diversity, loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes; degraded riparian condition 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. to top of Bonneville Pool (to RM 1.19), RM 5.72 – 9.72, RM 11.29 - 20.44; Snyder Creek 

Inundation by Bonneville Pool, channel simplification due to hydroconfinement by road and railroad prism; habitat fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, F, R0, I0-1, 

M1, R1, R2+

and M2+ 

Extreme impact on I0-1 and R1 and high impact on R2+ and moderate on M1 and M2+ in the Klickitat R. below RM 1.19; high impact on S and F between Snyder and Swale Cr RM 14.63-17.88; and on F in Snyder to RM .58; moderate on S, F, R0 in the Klickitat R. RM 11.29 - 14.63 , and for M1 and M2+ in the mainstem to RM 1.19; moderate on I0-1 and R1 from Lyle Falls to Logging Camp Canyon RM 2.61 – 9.72, and on S, F, and R0 from Wheeler to Snyder RM 11.29 – 14.63; moderate on S, R0, I0-1, R1, R2+, and M2+ in Snyder to RM .58, and on S, F and R0 RM .58 – 1.57 ; moderate on R0, I0-1, M1, R1 and M1 from Snyder to Swale Creek RM 14.63 – 17.88. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

S

Reduced food web Abundance, 

productivity 

Snyder Creek; Klickitat R. to top of Bonneville Pool (to RM 1.19) 

Inundation by Bonneville Pool; hydroconfinement. 

F, R0, I0-1, R1 Reduced benthic community; channel simplification. 

Extreme impact on F, R0, I0-1, R1 in Snyder Creek; moderate impact on I0-1 and R1 from mouth of Klickitat to top of Bonneville Pool at RM 1.19. 

nfc

Degraded water quality, water temperatures 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Snyder Creek Mill site; roads and past grazing 

practices in headwaters. 

F, R0 Reduced riparian canopy in mill reaches and 

reduced hyporheic flows. High impact on affected life stages in Snyder Creek 

vnc

Altered sediment 

routing 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Mainstem Klickitat from Snyder Creek to Little Klickitat R. 

Headwater forest practices and roads. 

E Moderate increase in fine sediment delivery over 

background levels. High impact from Snyder to Little Klickitat RM 14.63 – 20.44, upper Snyder; moderate 

rw

136
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

VSP Parameters Life Stages Limiting Factor Affected Sites Threats Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Impacted Affected*

(RM 14.63 – 20.44), 

Snyder Creek (RM .58 – RM 1.57) 

impact Wheeler to Snyder RM 11.29-14.63. v

cwmz

Predation Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. to top of Bonneville Pool (to RM 1.19), from Wheeler Canyon to Little Klickitat R. (RM 11.29-20.44) 

Increased densities of native and non-native predators in Bonneville Pool reach; hatchery stocking practices. 

F, I0-1, M1, R1, M2+ 

High densities of hatchery outplants. Moderate impact on affected life stages in Klickitat mouth; and on F from Wheeler to Little Klickitat R. 

Ctswn

Competition with hatchery fish 

Abundance, 

productivity 

From top end of Bonneville pool to Little Klickitat R. (RM 1.19 – 20.44) 

High densities of hatchery outplants. 

R1, R2+ Moderate impact S

Blocked or impaired passage 

Abundance, 

spatial structure

Mouths of spawning tributaries 

Altered hydrograph; channel 

morphology 

R0, R1, R2+ In low precipitation years there is often insufficient 

flow for adult passage through alluvial fans of spawning tributaries. 

Sa

Channel instability, loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Mainstem Klickitat Roads E, F, I0-1 Confinement has contributed to incision and bed 

coarsening. 

Impaired passage Productivity Mainstem Klickitat Unscreened pump intakes F, R0, R1 Increases juvenile mortality 

ao

Altered hydrology Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, diversity 

Mainstem Klickitat and tributaries 

Dewatering in tributaries. Future water demand for out-of-channel use in mainstem. 

S, R0, R1, R2+ 

Dewatering is currently a problem in tributaries and potential future problem in mainstem. 

Ocet

Harassment/ poaching Abundance Mainstem, tributaries Poaching. PM Moderate and periodic problem 

srt

Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age activ

rearing; M2+=2+-age active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impa

137
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table II-7. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the Upper Little Klickitat MaSA (provided by YStaff). 

Limiting Factor

VSP 

Parameters 

Impacted 

Affected Sites Threats Life Stages Affected* Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Reduced habitat diversity, degraded floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Spring Creek, W. Prong, E. Prong, Little Klickitat R. from Spring Creek to Cozy Nook (RM 9.02 – 20.34) 

Hydroconfinement and channel incision; roads; grazing and forest practices; habitat fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, F, R0, I0-1, M1, R1, M2+ 

Disconnected side-channels and channel simplification; reduction in LWD. Moderate impact on affected life stages. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

RestorconnecAugmefuture invasiv

Altered hydrology Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R. from Spring Creek to W. Prong (RM 9.02- 26.61); Spring Creek to RM 3.53; Bloodgood Creek; W. Prong; E. Prong; Butler Creek; Dry Creek 

 Diversions; road densities. F, R0, I0-1, R1 Channel simplification, channel incision and 

disconnected floodplain side-channels; reduced perennial and hyporheic flows. Moderate impact on affected life stages in lower Spring Creek and upper Little Klickitat watershed 

Managsummestreamcharac

Altered sediment 

routing 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Spring Creek, Bloodgood Creek to RM 2.23, W. Prong; E. Prong; Little Klickitat R. from Spring Creek to W. Prong (RM 9.02- 26.61); Butler Creek; Dry Creek 

Increased road densities in headwater tributaries and untreated forest road segments; runoff from agricultural lands. 

S, E Runoff, surface and re-distribution of in-channel 

fine sediment in the form of bank mass wasting; delivery of fine sediment from upstream tributary sources; agricultural sediment in Spring Creek, unnamed tributaries to Spring Creek, and Little Klickitat R. from Spring Creek to Bloodgood (downstream of Goldendale). Extreme impact on E in lower Spring and lower Bloodgood, in lower Klickitat R. from Cozy Nook to ~RM 24, W. Prong, and E. Prong from Dry Creek to Idlewild Canyon RM 2.73 – 4.81, Butler and Dry Creek; high impact on E RM 15.46 – 20.34, from ~RM 24 to W. Prong; mouth of E. Prong 

DisconsedimecharacPromoconnecmass w

Degraded water quality, water temperatures 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R. from falls to Hwy 97 (RM 6.38 – RM 26.68); Spring Creek; E. Prong; W. Prong 

Roads; grazing; lack of 

riparian cover. 

F, R0, R1, R2+, TR2+ 

Reduction in base flows and canopy cover, change in channel morphology (width to depth ratio). High to extreme impact on F and R0 in mainstem Little Klickitat from Spring Creek to W. Prong; high impact on R1 from Cozy Nook to ~RM 24; moderate impact on S from Spring Creek to Hwy. 97 

Re-vegcover. grazingspecieRestormorph

138
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

VSP Life Stages Limiting Factor Parameters Affected Sites Threats Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Affected* Impacted 

Reduced key habitat quantity, floodplain connectivity and function 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R.; W. Prong; E. Prong; Butler Creek 

Primarily past riparian management; habitat fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, E, F, I0-1, PH, Channel simplification and disconnected 

floodplain side-channels due to incision. High impact on S, E ~RM 24 to 26.6 and in W. Prong, E. Prong and Butler to Hwy. 97; rearing stages affected downstream of approximately Cozy Nook Creek; impact on S upstream of there. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

RestorconnecAugmefuture 

Degraded water quality, pathogens 

Abundance Little Klickitat R. from 

Spring Creek to Idlewild Canyon (RM 9.02 – RM 4.81 on E. Prong); Spring Creek to RM 3.53; Butler Creek 

Hatchery stocking; riparian grazing; anecdotal indications of illegal stocking of rainbow trout in tributaries to the Little Klickitat R. 

R0, R1, R2+, TR2+ Presence of hatchery fish. Elevated stream 

temperatures. High impact in Little Klickitat from Cozy Nook to ~RM 24, in E. Prong from Butler to Dry Creek, moderate impact elsewhere 

Re-vegtemperipariaRestormorph

Predation Abundance, 

productivity 

Spring Creek to RM 3.53, Little Klickitat from Spring Creek to Idlewild (RM 9.02 – RM 4.81 on E. Prong); W. Prong; Bloodgood Creek to RM 2.23; Butler Creek 

Increased number of fish taxa present; hatchery outplants and dewatering may be factors in the mainstem.

F, R0 Reduced summer base flows (stranding); lack 

of refugia, cover habitat. Moderate impact on F in all affected reaches; also on R0 from Butler to Dry Creek 

Changnumbeoutplanhatchepredat

Blocked or impaired passage 

Abundance, 

spatial structure 

West Prong at RM .07, RM 21.16; E. Prong at RM 25.41, RM 18.4 on Jenkins Cr;., RM 21.35 on Butler Creek, RM 23.99 on Dry Creek, and RM 25.59 on Idlewild Canyon Creek 

Box culverts under highway impede upstream fish passage. 

PM, R0, R1, R2+, TR2+, 

Extreme impact at box culvert barrier under Hwy. 97 at RM .07; varying passage at other culverts may present limited impediments to fish passage in good water years. 

Replac

Reduced food web Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R. from Spring Creek to Idlewild (RM 9.02 – RM 4.81 on E. Prong); Spring Creek to RM 3.53; Bloodgood Creek; W. Prong, Butler Creek; Dry Creek 

Agriculture and grazing 

practices. 

F, I0-1, R0, R1 Reduction in benthic community; nutrient 

enrichment, elevated temperatures and fine sediment delivery. High impact on F in mouth of Bloodgood, and from there to Cozy Nook in mainstem L. Klickitat; high also on F in Dry Creek from Hwy. 97 to ~ RM 2.5 and in E. Prong from Dry Creek to Idlewild. 

RestormorphReducdrainagcroppinriparialivesto

139
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

VSP Life Stages Limiting Factor Parameters Affected Sites Threats Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Affected* Impacted 

Competition with hatchery fish 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R. from Bloodgood Creek to Cozy Nook Creek (RM 15.46 – 20.34); Bloodgood Creek to RM 2.23 

Resident rainbow stocking from Goldendale Hatchery. 

R0, R1, R2+ Moderate impact on active rearing life stages Modify 

regard smolt r

Channel instability, loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes; degraded riparian condition 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Spring Creek, Little Klickitat R. from Spring Creek to Cozy Nook (RM 9.02 – 20.34); Bloodgood Creek to RM 2.23, W. Prong; E. Prong from W. Prong to Idlewild (RM 0 – 4.81) 

Hydroconfinement, active historical stream clearing in upper tributaries; hardened banks on road segments, infrastructure and bank armoring in agricultural lands. 

E, F High impact on E in lower Spring Creek, mouth 

of Bloodgood, W. Prong to RM 1.93, and in E. Prong from Dry Creek to Idlewild 

Restormorphstop hePerforaonto flo

Impaired fish passage Productivity Throughout MaSA Unscreened pump intakes. F, R0, R1 Extent of problem needs to be researched. Ensure 

screeninadeq

Degraded water quality, oxygen 

Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Primarily downstream of Goldendale 

Insufficient oxygen in mainstem Little Klickitat River. 

R0, R1, R2+ Needs to be monitored and assessed. Assess 

in Little of Gold

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage. 

140
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table II-8. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the West Fork Klickitat MaSA (provided by Ya

Staff). 

Limiting Factor VSP Parameters Impacted Sites Affected Threats Life Stages Affected* Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Blocked or impaired passage 

Abundance, 

spatial structure 

Natural barriers at RM .45 and 4.43 

Naturally occurring PM Passage and spawning frequency of this 

watershed largely undocumented, assumed to be minimal 

Collect modistribution 

Altered 

sediment routing 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Roaded portions of MaSA 

Sediment delivery from upstream road failures 

E, I0-1 Protect streams from adverse effects of forest 

practices (particularly roads). 

Prevent intundersized 

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage. 

Table II-9. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the Swale Creek MiSA (provided by Yakama N

Limiting Factor VSP Parameters Impacted Sites Affected Threats Life Stages Affected* Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Degraded water quality, water temperatures 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Swale Creek mouth to S. tributary at RM 12 

Railroad prism in floodplain. S, E, F, R0, 

M1, R1, M2+, PM 

Reduced riparian canopy, reduced perennial and hyporheic flows due to altered channel morphology and disconnected floodplain. Extreme impact on E stages and high on F and R0 in whole section; high on M1, R1 to RM 8, moderate there to RM 12; moderate impact on spawners throughout 

Reduced key habitat quantity, floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Swale Creek mouth to S. tributary at RM 12 

Railroad prism in floodplain. Habitat fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

All stages 

except TR2+ 

Channel simplification and lack of riparian vegetation to provide cover and recruit wood (creates pools for holding and rearing habitat and sorts substrate for spawning habitat).High impact on F and R0 to RM 4 (moderate on all other life stages in this reach); extreme on F and high on E, R0, M1,R1 and PH RM ~4-8, high impact on S, E, F and R0 ~RM 8-12. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

Altered sediment 

routing 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Swale Creek mouth to NW tributary at ~RM 8 

Sediment delivery from agricultural sources in the highlands of the Swale Creek Basin. 

E High impact to RM 8 

Degraded water quality, pathogens 

Abundance Swale Creek mouth 

to S. tributary at RM 12 

Hatchery stocking practices: presence of hatchery-origin fish (spawning and rearing coho/steelhead); railroad prism in floodplain. 

R0 High density of hatchery-origin fish. Elevated stream 

temperatures due to lack of canopy cover, instream structure. Reduction in LWD related to railroad prism. High impact throughout the section 

141
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

VSP Parameters Life Stages Limiting Factor Sites Affected Threats Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Impacted Affected*

Reduced food web Abundance, 

productivity 

Swale Creek mouth to S. tributary at RM 12 

Railroad prism in floodplain. F, R0, I0-1, R1 Potential reduction in macroinvertebrate densities; 

channel simplification, intermittent flows and high temperatures. High impact on F from ~RM 4-8 and moderate impact in other reaches; moderate impact on other affected stages from ~RM 4-8 

Reduced habitat diversity, degraded floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Swale Creek mouth to S. tributary at RM 12 

Hydroconfinement; railroad prism in floodplain; habitat fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, F, R0, I0-1, M1, R1, TR2+ M2+ 

Disconnected side-channels and channel simplification; channel incision; reduction in LWD. High impact on F between ~RM4-; moderate impact on S and F to RM ~4; moderate on S, R0, I0-1, M1, R1, and M2+ ~RM 4-8; moderate on S, F and R0 ~RM 8-12. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

Predation Abundance, 

productivity 

Swale Creek mouth to S. tributary at RM 12 

Hatchery stocking practices; loss of cover. 

F, R0 High density of hatchery-origin fish; reduction in LWD 

and pools for cover. Moderate impact in whole section 

Altered hydrology Abundance, 

productivity 

Swale Creek mouth to S. tributary at RM 12 

Upstream diversions (irrigation season); railroad prism in floodplain. 

F, R0, I0-1, R1 Reduced summertime base flows, channel incision, 

reduced perennial and hyporheic flows; increased peak flows. Reduced LWD. Moderate impact on F and R0 to ~RM 4; moderate on F, R0, I0-1, and R1 ~RM 4-8; moderate on F ~RM 8-12 

Channel instability, loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Canyon reach. Incision and channel instability. I0-1, R0, R1, 

R2 

Degraded habitat, low pool frequency and quality. 

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+-a

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage. 

142
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table II-10. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the Surveyor’s Creek MiSA (provided by Yaka

Staff). 

Limiting Factor VSP Parameters Impacted Location of Impacts Threats Life stages affected* Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Altered sediment 

routing 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. from Big Muddy Creek to Castile Falls step pool habitat (RM 54.87– 65.42); Trout Creek to RM 1.09, Bear Creek, Surveyors Creek 

Increased road densities and drainage extension. 

S, E, F, I0-1 Point source delivery of fine sediment from upstream 

tributary sources. Moderate impact on S & E from Big Muddy to Surveyors, on S in Surveyors from cascade barrier to Cedar Creek and from Surveyors to step pool habitat within Castile cascades; and on E in Trout Creek from mouth to cascades 

Reduced food web Abundance, 

productivity 

Klickitat R. from Trout Creek to Castile step pool habitat (RM – 65.42); W. Fork Klickitat below falls (RM .45) 

Reduction in salmon carcasses (spring Chinook salmon). 

F, R1, I0-1 Moderate impact from Trout Creek to Surveyors and 

from Soda Springs to step pool habitat within Castile cascades, lower W. Fork 

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0-1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage 

Table II-11. Potential Limiting factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in Lower Little Klickitat MiSA (provided by Yaka

Staff). 

Limiting Factor VSP Parameters Impacted Sites Affected Threats Life Stages Affected* Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Degraded water quality, water temperatures 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R. to RM 1.24, from Mill Creek to L. Klickitat Falls (RM 3.75-6.38); Canyon Creek; Bowman Creek 

Upstream diversions and channel morphology; past grazing; floodplain road; upper watershed grazing; possible dewatering in upper reaches of Canyon Creek 

S, E, F, R0, 

R1

Reduction in base flows. Reduced canopy cover upstream and in lowermost section of Little Klickitat R. around Hwy. 142 bridge and where road parallels Bowman Creek High impact on R0, R1 and E in lower Little Klickitat, on S, E and F between Canyon and Little Klickitat Falls, high on E in Bowman from mouth to falls. Moderate impact on S in Little Klickitat to falls. 

Restormorphwaters

Degraded water quality, pathogens 

Productivity Little Klickitat R. to 

L. Klickitat Falls (RM 6.38); Bowman Creek 

Hatchery stocking; grazing in upper watershed. 

R0 Elevated stream temperatures exacerbated 

by lack of riparian cover. Moderate impact 

Re-vegtempestockinlocatiopathog

Altered sediment routing Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R. to L. Klickitat Falls (RM 6.38); Canyon 

Increased road densities in headwater tributaries and untreated forest road segments, 

E Runoff, surface and re-distribution of inchannel fine sediment in the form of bank 

mass wasting; delivery of fine sediment from 

Disconinputs. surfaci

143
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

VSP Parameters Life Stages Limiting Factor Sites Affected Threats Significance (Scope/Severity) 

Impacted Affected*

Creek; Bowman Creek 

agricultural run-off. upstream agricultural and tributary sources. 

Extreme impact in lower Canyon and Bowman, high impact in mouth of Little Klickitat 

buffers

Reduced food web Productivity Little Klickitat to RM 

1.24 

Nutrient enrichment; agricultural practices and grazing. 

F, I0-1, R1 Reduction in benthic community. Elevated 

temperatures and fine sediment delivery. Moderate impact 

Actions 

factors RestormorphReduccharacPromoEradiccritical livesto

Reduced key habitat quantity, loss of floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Canyon Creek Hydroconfinement. Habitat 

fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, E Channel simplification and reduced riparian 

function. Moderate impact. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

RestorShort-tProtec

Predation Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R. to L. Klickitat Falls (RM 6.38); Canyon Creek; Bowman Creek to RM .15 

Hatchery stocking practices; dewatering. 

F, R0, I0-1, M1, M2+ 

Predation is hypothesized by EDT model. High density of hatchery-origin smolts due to stocking of catchable rainbow trout from Goldendale Hatchery in Little Klickitat R. and anadromous stocks in mainstem Klickitat R. Dewatering intensifies impact from avian and terrestrial predators. Moderate impact in all affected reaches 

ChangnumbeReseaand no

Altered hydrology Abundance, 

productivity 

Little Klickitat R. to L. Klickitat Falls (RM 6.38); Bowman Creek; Canyon Creek 

Upstream diversions. F, R0 Decrease in summertime base flows. 

Moderate impact on F, R0 in Little Klickitat from mouth to Mill Creek, Canyon and Bowman creeks 

Managflows. 

Reduced habitat diversity, floodplain function and channel migration processes 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Canyon Creek to RM 1.09; Little Klickitat R. to RM 1.24 

Hydroconfinement. Habitat fragmentation via subdivision, land-clearing, and development. 

S, F, R0, I0-1 Channel simplification and reduced riparian 

function. Moderate impact. Habitat protection through land acquisition/conservation easement by WDFW or land trust. 

Restor

Short-tLWD. degrad

Competition with hatchery fish 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Bowman Creek; Little Klickitat from Mill Creek to L. Klickitat Falls (RM 3.75 – RM 6.38) 

Resident rainbow stocking from Goldendale Hatchery and mainstem Klickitat smolt planting (coho, steelhead). 

R0, R1 Moderate impact Chang

numbeReseaand no

144
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage. 

Table II-12. Potential Limiting Factors for Middle Columbia River Steelhead in the Trout Creek MiSA (provided by Yakama 

Limiting Factor VSP Parameters Impacted Sites Affected Threats Life Stages Affected* Significance (Scope/ Severity) 

Altered 

sediment routing 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Trout Creek from top of falls to Bear Creek (RM 1.09 - RM2.62); Bear Creek to meadow at RM 3.10 

Increased road densities and drainage extension; to a lesser degree, water withdrawal for watering roads (dust abatement). 

E, I0-1 Delivery of fine sediment from upstream tributary sources. 

Point source delivery of fine sediment associated with road drainage. Extreme impact on E in Bear Creek from mouth to meadow at ~RM 3.1; high impact in Trout Creek from cascade to Bear Creek; moderate on I0-1 throughout 

Reduced food web 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Trout Creek from top of falls to Bear Creek (RM 1.09 – RM 2.62); Bear Creek to meadow at RM 3.10 

Road densities, past riparian logging. 

F, R0, I0-1, R1 Elevated temperatures and fine sediment levels. High impact 

on F in Trout Creek from cascade to Bear Creek and in Bear Creek to ~ RM 3.1; moderate impact on R0, I0-1, R1 in Bear Creek 

Degraded water quality, particularly water temperatures 

Abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure 

Trout Creek from top of falls to Bear Creek (RM 1.09 – RM 2.62); 

Floodplain roads; past riparian 

logging. 

S, E, F, R0 Reduced riparian canopy; reduced perennial and hyporheic 

flows. High impact on E and moderate impact on S, F, R0 in Trout Creek from cascade to Bear Creek 

Reduced key habitat quantity, loss of channel structure and floodplain connectivity 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Trout Creek from top of falls to Bear Creek (RM 1.09 – RM 2.62); Bear Creek to meadow at RM 3.10 

Hydroconfinement; road densities, floodplain roads, past riparian logging. 

F, R0, M1, PH Channel simplification and disconnected side-channels. 

Reduced LWD. Moderate impact on F, R0, M1, PH in Trout Creek from cascade to Bear Creek, and on F, PH in Bear Creek to ~RM 3.1 

Reduced habitat diversity, degraded channel structure, floodplain connectivity 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Trout Creek from top of falls to Bear Creek (RM 1.09 – RM 2.62); Bear Creek to meadow at RM 3.10 

Hydroconfinement. S, F, R0 Channel incision and disconnected side-channels. Reduced 

LWD. Moderate impact on affected life stages in Trout Creek from cascade to Bear Creek, and in Bear Creek to ~ RM 3.1 

Altered 

hydrology 

Abundance, 

productivity 

Trout Creek from top of falls to Bear Creek (RM 1.09 – RM 2.62); Bear Creek to meadow at RM 3.10 

Channel incision related to roads; increased peak flows. Reduced perennial and hyporheic flows associated with incision and extension of the drainage network by forest 

E, F, I0-1,R0 Increased peak flows; reduced perennial and hyporheic 

flows. Moderate impact on F, R0 in Trout Creek from cascade to Bear Creek, and in Bear Creek to ~ RM 3.1 

145
Appendix II – Limiting Factors and Threats 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

146

Limiting Factor VSP Parameters Impacted Sites Affected Threats Life Stages Affected* Significance (Scope/ Severity) 

roads.

Blocked or impaired passage 

Abundance, 

spatial structure 

Waterfall reach and upstream 

Numerous (>10) naturally occurring cascades and waterfalls (6-8'); at least four road crossings that act as partial barriers (all four are upstream of the waterfall reach). 

R0, R1, R2+, TR2+, PM

Though no one cascade is beyond the published ability of adult steelhead in terms of sheer size, there are several with very challenging hydraulics. Cumulatively, they likely restrict nearly all passage. Passage and spawning frequency of this watershed largely undocumented, assumed to be minimal above high gradient reach within lower 1.5 miles. May have been higher historically, but debris torrent associated with road failures in 1974 is believed to have radically altered channel morphology in lower five miles of Trout Creek. Passage conditions prior to torrent are unknown. 

* Key to life history stage codes: S=Spawning; E=Egg incubation; F=Fry colonization; R0=0-age active rearing; I0-1=0,1-age inactive; M1=1-age migrant; R1=1-age active rearing; R2+=2+

active migrant; TR2+= 2+-age transient rearing; PM= pre-spawning migrant; PH= pre-spawning holding. Bold style denotes high to extreme impact on that life stage. 
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Appendix III. Current Efforts and Regulations 

Numerous projects have been completed recently or have been initiated to address factors 

affecting salmonid production in the Klickitat subbasin. Additionally, there are 

numerous rules and regulations in place that will prevent or minimize future effects on 

salmonid production. These actions and regulations are described in the following 

sections. 

Habitat Restoration Actions

Positive change is underway to address limiting factors and threats to improve steelhead 

habitat conditions. A number of actions are proposed, being planned, or are already 

being implemented in the subbasin to address these conditions and the affected 

populations. 

Castile Falls Fishway 

One major change is the renovation of the Castile Falls Fishway. Castile Falls, a natural 

barrier consisting of multiple cascades and barriers, was a historical obstruction to the 

upstream migration of anadromous fish into the upper Klickitat watershed. The fishway 

was first constructed in the early 1960s. Design flaws and improper maintenance 

contributed to the failure of the first attempt to provide passage over the falls. Recently, 

the Castile Falls Fishway was renovated to bring it into compliance with NMFS fish 

passage standards and facilitate anadromous fish passage to habitats in the upper 

subbasin. From 2003-2005, work was completed on the two fishway tunnels within the 

Castile Falls complex. Design improvements consisted of conversion from a pool-weir 

style fishway to a vertical slot fishway to allow passage over a wider range of river flow 

conditions and to reduce maintenance needs. Project engineers and biologists have 

measured improved flow, attraction flow and energy dissipation factor (EDF) within the 

weir—all of which are consistent with industry standards and which meet criteria for fish 

passage. Funds were appropriated after the major 1996 flood to perform major 

maintenance activities to this NOAA Fisheries/Mitchell Act-funded fishway. The first 

complete season that these facilities will be operational ends in 2006. At this time, a 

performance evaluation will be made (YN and Harbor Engineering Co. 2006). 

The Castile Falls Enumeration Facility (CFEF) will provide the ability to enumerate 

escapement into the upper Klickitat subbasin, and assess recent improvements to the 

Castile Falls Fishway. A counting station will be placed in the upper CFEF. This 

structure will be installed at the fishway exit of the Castile Falls 10/11 Fishway tunnel 

and will include video monitoring and PIT-tag detection capabilities, as well as the ability 

to trap salmon and steelhead for biological and DNA assessment. The recounting 

structure will allow fisheries managers to: (1) determine escapement of Klickitat spring 

Chinook and summer steelhead into headwater habitats; (2) assess stock status and future 

trends as needed to calculate natural production and adult-to-adult return rates, and to 

refine EDT and run forecasting models used to guide supplementation and habitat 

147
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

restoration actions and set harvest objectives; (3) conduct video monitoring to gain 

critical biological data such as species, run timing, size, and sex ratio of returning adults; 

and (4) collect age and DNA information on returning adults.

Lyle Falls Fishway 

Improvements are also planned at Lyle Falls Fishway to address limited adult fish 

passage through the fishway into the Klickitat subbasin. Engineering assessments 

(Harbor Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1996) identified the following factors currently 

restricting passage at the fishway: 

1. Inadequate attraction water 

2. Location of the fishway entrance 

3. Configuration of the fishway entrance ports 

4. Location of the fishway exit, with fish exiting into swift water 

5. Trash rack debris accumulations

6. River shoaling at the fishway exit

A subsequent HEC-RAS hydraulic model report, using fisheries criteria in accordance 

with the accepted design criteria approved by fishery agencies (NOAA and WDFW), 

outlined repairs, modifications, and retrofits that would facilitate increased passage into 

the Klickitat subbasin for all fish at nearly all flow conditions.

The completion of on-going engineering and design work for Lyle Falls will establish a 

facility that allows a high proportion of returning fish to be physically examined at a 

location in the lower watershed. A video monitoring and PIT-tag detection system would 

enable escapement monitoring, provide run-timing information, and improve 

enumeration of natural- and hatchery-origin recruits returning to the subbasin. It could 

also determine the presence/absence of a fluvial bull trout population. The collection 

facility would support data collection that bears on the scientific justification for 

particular supplementation activities proposed for the subbasin. See ISRP 2005-16. The 

facility would support monitoring and evaluation strategies in the proposed Klickitat 

Anadromous Fishery Master Plan (KMP) that can be undertaken prior to implementation 

of supplementation activities, including the following: 

• Strategy SC3d. Use radio telemetry, mark-recapture, and/or run 

reconstruction to determine passage and entrainment rates at Lyle and 

Castile Falls and to track natural spawners to their spawning grounds. 

• Strategy SC5a. Collect DNA samples and morphometric data from fish 

passing through the Lyle Falls and Castile Falls traps. Use findings from 

Yakima and other Columbia Basin studies in conjunction with information 

from these samples to target genetic studies in the Klickitat subbasin. 

Convene meetings of tribal and state geneticists as necessary to further 

develop sampling rates, protocols, and evaluation measures. 

148
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

• Strategy SC6b. Update and maintain all Klickitat-related databases with 

historical and current harvest data. 

• Strategy SC6c. Use run reconstruction methods developed for Yakima 

Basin spring Chinook to reconstruct Klickitat run and harvest to the 

Columbia River mouth.

Fish passage barriers 

Current culvert replacement projects throughout the subbasin are ensuring that passage 

structures will allow movement of all life stages of salmonids by maintaining a natural 

stream bottom and stream width, and allowing for natural floodplain function. These 

bottomless arch culverts and bridges allow for the natural movement of sediments, 

bedload material, and large woody debris needed for the formation of pool and complex 

rearing habitats. 

Washington State Parks recently replaced a railroad trestle that was impeding steelhead 

migration in Logging Camp Creek. Klickitat County, Yakama Nation Fisheries, WDFW, 

two private landowners, Mid-Columbia Regional Fisheries Group and community 

volunteers recently completed a fish passage and habitat restoration project that enables 

steelhead to access habitat in Snyder Creek. 

Habitat enhancement projects 

Habitat enhancement projects are also being implemented by a variety of different 

entities in many parts of the watershed to improve spawning and rearing conditions. The 

Underwood Conservation District, which includes some western portions of the Klickitat 

watershed, repaired a headcut in 2004 in upper Snyder Creek, the result of previous 

incision and downcutting in the headwaters, which they continue to monitor.

The Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group is involved in a number of habitat 

restoration projects in the Klickitat River subbasin in conjunction with YKFP, Federal 

and state agencies, local partners and private landowners. In the spring of 2006, MidColumbia Fisheries began a riparian restoration project along 2,000 linear feet of river 

bank on the lower mainstem Klickitat. Mid-Columbia Fisheries was a partner in a project 

on the Little Klickitat River sponsored by the Central Klickitat Conservation District. 

This project restored a 350 ft. section of the Little Klickitat River within the Goldendale 

City limits. The goal of the project is to improve water quality, stabilize eroding stream 

banks, reduce sediment, increase riparian cover, and reduce water temperature. As part 

of the project, old abutments made from dilapidated barrels and other debris was removed 

from the river banks. Banks were re-shaped, large woody debris was installed and the 

area is being re-planted. 

A number of habitat projects are underway to address the temperature TMDL (Anderson 

2004) for the Little Klickitat. The City of Goldendale rehabilitated Bloodgood Springs 

which feeds Bloodgood Creek, a source of cold water for the Little Klickitat River. 

Bloodgood Springs has been abandoned as a city water source, and the water rights were 

149
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

transferred to a well in the Simcoe Mountains.. The pumping infrastructure neat the 

Bloodgood stream has been removed. (David McClure, personal communication). 

In 2003, the City of Goldendale abandoned its use of Bloodgood Springs at the head of 

Bloodgood Creek and moved its water right for these springs to a well in the Simcoe 

Mountains. Additionally, this well in the Simcoe Mountains has been added to the 

authorized points of withdrawal for the City of Goldendale’s “Mountain Springs” water 

right. This water right change has enabled the City of Goldendale to decrease its use of 

the springs which are in the headwaters if the Little Klickitat River. In recent years, the 

City brought the “Basse Well Field” on line and reduced the City’s dependence on the 

springs in the Little Klickitat River’s headwaters. The City of Goldendale historically 

land applied wastewater, now the City’s new wastewater treatment plan puts treated 

effluent directly into the Little Klickitat River, improving stream flow in the river. The 

City is following-up on work started under the WRIA 30/Klickitat River watershed 

planning effort by obtaining grant funding and implementing more intensive 

investigations of aquifer storage and recovery opportunities for addressing climate 

change/variability concerns as they relate to the City’s water needs and Little Klickitat 

River stream flows. In support of implementing the Klickitat River Management 

Watershed Plan, the City has obtained grant funding and initiated a project to improve its 

water conveyance system and achieve significant water conservation objectives, which 

are anticipated benefit Little Klickitat River stream flows. 

The Central Klickitat Conservation District also has a number of projects in progress to 

address water quality and/or bank stability in the Little Klickitat watershed in conjunction 

with the Washington Conservation Corps, the Northwest Service Academy, Klickitat 

County and others through EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program), CREP 

(Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and CCRP (Continuous Conservation 

Reserve Program). Additionally, TMDL implementation work (e.g., stream flow and 

temperature monitoring, riparian planting) by the conservation district is support by a 

chapter 319 grant and related conservation programs or grants. 

The USDA Forest Service is working on restoring an approximately 25-acre parcel near 

the mouth of the Klickitat River on the west bank. The goal of the project is to reestablishing the native riparian and wetland plant communities. 

The Klickitat Public Utility District (KPUD) participates in the WRIA 30/Klickitat 

watershed planning process which addresses water quantity, water quality, and fish 

habitat within the Klickitat Basin. A recent project with potential benefits to water 

quality involved replacing the town of Klickitat’s wastewater collection system piping 

with interceptor tanks and new pipe to reduce the affects of storm water and flooding. 

KPUD replaced the wastewater treatment plant. The plant employs an ultraviolet light 

treatment system to provide pathogen reduction (to kill fecal coliform) and to eliminate 

the daily use of chlorine as the main means of germicide. This treatment method will 

eliminate the discharge of chlorine into the Klickitat River from the plant. These two 

projects received approval by members and Elders of the Yakama Nation in 2004. 

150
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Construction was completed in May of 2007 (Tim Furlong, Klickitat PUD, personal 

communication, 2009). 

Habitat restoration activities are a key component of the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries 

Project (YKFP), an effort co-managed by the Yakama Nation Fisheries Program (lead 

agency) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife aimed at recovery of native 

anadromous salmonid populations in the Yakima and Klickitat River basins. The 

principal focus of the YKFP is to increase natural production of and opportunity to 

harvest salmon and steelhead in the Yakima and Klickitat subbasins using 

supplementation, harvest augmentation and habitat improvements. The YKFP is 

sponsored in large part by the Bonneville Power Administration with oversight and 

guidance from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) (Yakama Nation 

Fisheries 2006). 

The Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project (KWEP) conducts protection and 

restoration projects in the Klickitat River and tributaries to subbasin supporting native 

anadromous fish production. The goal of the KWEP, in keeping with the objectives of 

the Klickitat Subbasin Plan, the Klickitat Lead Entity Strategic Plan and the 1994 NPCC 

Fish and Wildlife Program, is to restore watershed health to aid recovery of salmonid 

stocks in the Klickitat subbasin. Restoration activities are aimed at restoring stream 

processes by removing or mitigating watershed perturbances and improving habitat 

conditions and water quality. Protection activities complement restoration efforts within 

the subbasin by securing refugia and preventing degradation of habitat. Actions under 

these projects include instream large woody debris placement, culvert replacements and 

other passage improvements, forest road rehabilitation, floodplain reconnection, and 

habitat acquisition; all of these habitat actions are consistent with objectives described in 

the subbasin plan (NPCC 2004, pp. 333-352). Assessment, monitoring and data 

management are also crucial components of the KWEP Program. Cooperation with state, 

Federal, tribal, and private entities ensures maximum effectiveness in 90 percent of the 

off-reservation project area in private ownership (Conley 2006). 

The Klickitat Watershed Management Plan was completed and approved under chapter 

90.82 RCW. This watershed plan (available at 

http://klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/default.asp?fD=3) will guide management of water 

resources in those areas of the Klickitat Basin that are outside of the Yakama Reservation 

and tribal trust lands. The purpose of the watershed plan is to incorporate broad-sense 

interests (e.g., aesthetic and recreational values, consideration of species not listed under 

the ESA) that eclipse the purposes of the ESA. As provided in state statute, a detailed 

implementation plan, Detailed Implementation Plan Klickitat River Basin (WRIA30)

(Aspect 2008) (available at 

http://klickitatcounty.org/NaturalR/Content.asp?fC=23&fD=3), was developed during the 

first year following watershed plan approval. Primary responsibility for implementing 

the watershed plan is assigned to the “Implementing Governments,” which are Klickitat 

County, state agencies (represented by the Department of Ecology), Klickitat PUD, City 

of Goldendale, and Central Klickitat Conservation District. Action-specific 

151
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

responsibilities and terms of commitment (e.g., rules, ordinances, or agreements), funding 

sources, and schedules with milestones for project completion are specified in the 

detailed implementation plan. Grant funding for the first five years of watershed plan 

implementation is provided for in chapter 90.82 RCW. Actions completed pursuant to 

the watershed planning process have included various assessments pertaining to water 

quality, water quantity, and fish habitat in the Klickitat Basin, and installation and 

maintenance four continuous flow monitors on the Little Klickitat River and three 

continuous flow monitors on Swale Creek, and, installation and maintenance of a 

SNOTEL precipitation monitoring station in the Simcoe Mountains. Priority goals in the 

watershed plan include those pertaining to the following key concerns: 

• Current and future water demand (which consider stream flow needs of fish); 

• Summer stream flow in the Little Klickitat River; 

• Little Klickitat River temperature; 

• Swale Creek temperature; 

• Fish habitat restoration and protection; and 

• Potential effects of population growth on fish habitat. 

Klickitat County is actively engaged in projects and programs benefiting ESA-listed fish 

species within the county. The County is the lead agency for watershed planning and 

Klickitat Watershed Management Plan implementation, as well as the lead entity for the 

“SRFB process” through which PCSRF and state finding is obtained for salmon and 

steelhead habitat projects within the Klickitat and White Salmon River basins. Over the 

last five years the County has sponsored approximately a dozen salmon and steelhead 

habitat restoration projects, conducted in cooperation with a range of partners including 

the EKCD, Mid-Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group, Yakama Nation 

Fisheries, and WDFW. The County has also contributed matching funds for such 

projects as the Klickitat Wastewater Treatment Plan upgrade and “in-kind match” for 

such projects as the conservation district’s implementation of the Little Klickitat River 

Temperature TMDL.

Regulatory Protection

Various state, tribal and county regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect riparian 

areas from current and future threats posed to listed species through habitat loss and 

degradation caused by human land uses and development. Numerous voluntary programs 

are also available to address habitat conservation. In addition, some areas receive special 

protection through designation, such as Wild and Scenic River reaches, primitive areas, 

and wildlife refuges. 

152
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

NOAA Fisheries and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Section 7 Consultations 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs all Federal action agencies to consult 

with NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that their actions 

will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify designated critical habitat. Actions include not only direct Federal actions, but 

also actions funded with Federal dollars. A Biological Assessment or Biological 

Evaluation is usually developed and submitted to NMFS for review prior to 

implementation of the project. The reader can find additional information regarding the 

consultation process at: www.cit.noaa.gov/nosign/default.asp?action=ConsultationGuide. 

Clean Water Act 

The Federal Clean Water Act addresses the development and implementation of water 

quality standards, the development of total maximum daily loads (TMDL), filling of 

wetlands, point source permitting, the regulation of stormwater, and other provisions 

related to protection of U.S. waters. The Clean Water Act is administered in the State of 

Washington by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) with oversight by the EPA. State 

water quality standards are set to protect beneficial uses, which include several categories 

of salmonid use. Ecology has a water quality certification program under which it 

reviews projects that will discharge dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S. and 

issues certifications that the proposed action meets State water quality standards and 

other aquatic protection regulations, if appropriate. Ecology also issues National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and develops water quality 

cleanup plans (TMDL) to address water quality limited streams. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the probable impacts of their proposed 

activities, programs, and projects (including funding of state, local, and private actions) 

on the quality of the human environment. NEPA reviews help agencies decide whether 

to undertake a proposed action. In most cases, the NEPA review requires the 

development of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) that addresses the probable effects of a project and its alternatives on various 

elements of the environment, including soils, geology, landscapes, atmospheric 

conditions, vegetation, fish and wildlife, and cultural resources. Many Federal funding 

programs are covered under a general NEPA review completed when the funding 

program was developed. 

Watershed Planning Act 

In 1998 chapter 90.82 RCW was amended with the passage of ESHB 2514. This law is 

also known as the Watershed Planning Act. The Watershed Planning Act was established 

to address the diminishing water availability and quality, and the loss of habitat for fish in 

the State of Washington. The Watershed Planning Act provides a framework for local 

citizens, tribes, and state and local agencies to work together to develop and implement 

Watershed Management Plans for entire watersheds. 

153
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

As part of the planning process, a watershed assessment is completed for each Water 

Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) to evaluate water supply and use. Once the watershed 

assessment is complete, a management plan, followed by a detailed implementation plan, 

is developed to address water quantity, water quality, and fish habitat issues identified in 

the assessment. A watershed assessment has been completed for the Klickitat subbasin 

(WRIA 30) (WPN and Aspect 2005a) and the Klickitat River Watershed Management 

Plan (WPN and Aspect 2005a) and Detailed Implementation Plan Klickitat River Basin 

(WRIA30) (Aspect 2008) have been approved. 

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 

SEPA regulations require an environmental review of actions taken by the state and local 

agencies, including funding and permitting. Some actions, such as the construction of 

single-family dwellings, minor road repair, and issuance of business licenses, are exempt. 

A SEPA review evaluates the probable environmental effects of a proposed project. This 

information is used to determine if the action should be taken as proposed, if mitigation is 

necessary, or if the proposal should be rejected. 

Forest & Fish Regulations (Washington State) 

The Washington Forests & Fish Law (ESHB 2091) was signed into law in 1999 as part of 

The Washington State Forest Practices Act (Title 76.09 RCW), passed in 1974. The 

Forests & Fish Law, based on the Forests & Fish Report, resulted in changes to forest 

practices rules to protect riparian and aquatic resources on more than eight million acres 

of private forestland. It is intended to meet the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act 

concerning non-point source silvicultural practices. Changes to the law included: 

• Updates of the stream typing system in the state to improve mapping of fishbearing waters, 

• Increases in buffer widths along fish bearing and non-fish bearing streams, 

• Changes in forest practices to protect against landslides 

• Mandatory requirements to update the forest road system to hydrologically 

disconnect roads from streams and minimize sediment delivered to streams, 

• New regulations on pesticide applications to prevent or avoid drift of chemicals 

into streams, 

• Increased protection of wetlands 

• Changes in enforcement, 

• Establishment of a scientifically based adaptive management and monitoring 

process for evaluating the impact of forest practices on aquatic resources, 

• Establishment of a process for amending the forest practices rules to incorporate 

new information as it becomes available, and 

• Establishment of a small landowner office to assist non-industrial landowners. 

Additional information regarding the Forest Practices rules can be found at: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices. 

154
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

• The Washington Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of the State of 

Washington, submitted applications to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for incidental take permits under section 10 of the Endangered Species 

Act. Issuance of these permits would provide assurances that all forest practices 

activities in compliance with the state forest practices rules and administrative 

program will satisfy ESA requirements for aquatic species. The two services 

released the final HCP, the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and 

implementing agreement in a Federal Register Notice on Jan. 27, 2006. This 

notice provides an opportunity for the public to review the final documents and 

the responses to public comments on the draft documents. 

Klickitat County Shorelines Master Plan 

In 1971 the Washington State Legislature passed the Washington Shoreline Management 

Act (SMA), adopted by public referendum in 1972. The purpose of the Act is “to prevent 

the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s 

shorelines” by requiring every county and many cities to develop a Shoreline Master Plan 

to govern development in shoreline areas 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/intro.html). Klickitat County’s 

Shorelines Master Plan (SMP) was first adopted in 1975 and has been updated 

periodically since then. The SMP and brochure on the shorelines permit program can be 

accessed from the Klickitat County Planning Department’s web site: 

http://klickitatcounty.org/Planning/default.asp?fCategoryIDSelected=301427788. 

The Klickitat County’s (SMP) regulates “development” within the “shorelines” of the 

Klickitat River and other water bodies in Klickitat County’s jurisdiction. “Development” 

is broadly defined as: construction or exterior alteration of existing structures; dredging; 

drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving 

of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature 

which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands 

subject to the SMP regulations at any state of water level. “Shorelines” are those lands 

extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured from the ordinary high 

water mark, floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such 

floodways;, and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams and lakes. The 

SMP applies to the shorelines of the main stem of the Klickitat River as well as the 

shorelines of all tributaries with a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or more. 

The SMP designates various shorelines of the Klickitat River and its tributaries as 

“environments”, which determine the level of protection that is warranted. Much of the 

Klickitat River is designated either “Natural Environment” which prohibits most 

development within its shorelines or “Conservancy Environment”, which allows a limited 

scope of development, subject to conditions (i.e. shoreline conditional use permit). 

Each development proposal is subject to review pursuant to the shoreline environment 

within which it is to be located. One or more shoreline permits must be secured prior to 

implementation: Substantial Development Permits (SDP) are required for any 

155
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

development for which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5,000, or any 

development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or 

shorelines; Shoreline Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are required for development types 

that warrant conditions to ensure consistency with the SMP; and Variances (VAR) are 

issued to grant relief from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards of the 

SMP in order to avoid unnecessary hardship, provided that extraordinary circumstances 

are shown to exist and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 

Some types of development, such as a single-family residence, normal maintenance and 

repair, or construction of a normal protective bulkhead for a single family residence, are 

exempt from the requirement of a substantial development permit, but are still subject to 

all other provisions of the SMP. 

Existing structures and developments that were established prior to adoption of the SMP 

are considered legally established “non-conforming” uses. Since adoption of the SMP, 

all developments within shorelines, including modifications to non-conforming uses, 

have been reviewed by the County and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to 

ensure compliance with the goals and requirements of the SMP. 

The Department of Ecology reviews the County’s permit decisions and has final authority 

to approve or deny conditional use permits and variances. Persons may appeal the final 

decision to the Shorelines Hearings Board. 

Klickitat County Critical Areas Ordinance 

Klickitat County adopted a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in 2001 and, with the 

concurrence of Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Community Trade and 

Economic Development, and Ecology, amended it in 2004. The CAO extends beyond 

the geographical scope of the County’s SMP to protect wetlands, critical fish/wildlife 

habitat, geologically hazardous areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded 

areas. The CAO is, in effect, an overlay on existing land use regulations. The CAO 

provides for standard setbacks of 300’ from Category I wetlands; 200’ from Category II; 

and 75’ from Category III and IV. The CAO provides for standard buffers of 200’ from 

Type 1 & 2 waters; 150’ from Type 3 waters; 50’ from Type 4 waters; and 25’ from Type 

5 waters. A wildlife habitat management plan is required for new development that will 

likely impair habitat functions and values. As with the SMP, developments and uses that 

existed prior to the adoption of the CAO are considered legally established “nonconforming” uses. The CAO and brochures land use permit programs can be accessed 

from the Klickitat County Planning Department’s web site: 

http://klickitatcounty.org/Planning/default.asp?fCategoryIDSelected=301427788. 

Klickitat County Floodplain Management Ordinance 

The Klickitat County Floodplain Management Ordinance (FPO) regulates all 

development and activities that may increase flood hazards. A permit is required for 

development within areas of special flood hazard (with at least one percent chance of 

flooding). The applicant for a non-residential structure must include a certification and 

156
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

flood analysis conducted by a professional engineer. In general, development that will 

does not meet the specific criteria in the ordinance for development in these areas, to 

protect public health and safety, will be denied. The FPO and brochures land use permit 

programs can be accessed from the Klickitat County Planning Department’s web site: 

http://klickitatcounty.org/Planning/default.asp?fCategoryIDSelected=301427788. 

Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance 

The Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance (CZO) was adopted in 1979 and has been 

amended over time. Much of the Klickitat River watershed is zoned by the CZO as 

“extensive agriculture” which requires a 20-acre minimum lot size for the purpose of 

dividing properties, and new development/uses are restricted to resource management 

uses/activities and other compatible uses. One permanent residential dwelling is allowed 

per lot. Some areas of the watershed are zoned for residential development. The 

allowable minimum lot size for new lots is either 1 or 2 acres; and one residential 

dwelling is allowed per lot. Other than residential development, most new 

development/uses in these zones is either prohibited or allowed per a zoning conditional 

use permit. The CZO and brochures land use permit programs can be accessed from the 

Klickitat County Planning Department’s web site: 

http://klickitatcounty.org/Planning/default.asp?fCategoryIDSelected=301427788. 

Klickitat County Environmental Ordinance (CEO) 

The Klickitat County Environmental Ordinance (CEO) was adopted pursuant to the State 

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The CEO and SEPA require an analysis of probable 

significant adverse environmental impacts that may result from a proposed development. 

The CEO and SEPA require a threshold determination for each proposed development 

that is not exempt. The threshold determination is a determination that a project will or 

will not have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. If a project has 

probable significant adverse impacts, and environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

prepared. Any proposed development/use that is not specifically exempt in SEPA, 

chapter 43.21C RCW, or the SEPA rules adopted by the Department of Ecology, chapter 

197-11 WAC, is required to comply with SEPA. Klickitat County provides applicable 

state agencies and tribes, as well as the public, the opportunity to review threshold 

determinations and EISs. 

Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW) 

This act gives Ecology the authority to protect water quality in the state and to 

promulgate regulations as needed to achieve this goal. The Act makes discharges of 

pollutants into waters of the state unlawful and has provisions for enforcement of 

violations, including the authority and process for issuing compliance orders and civil 

penalties, and for seeking criminal penalties. The Act also provides for permitting 

processes, cooperation with other entities, water quality monitoring, grants, and 

numerous other subjects regarding management of water quality issues in the state. 

157
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Washington’s statewide monitoring program 

In 2001, Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 5637 was signed into law. This act related to 

monitoring of watershed health and salmon recovery. The Monitoring Oversight 

Committee developed a comprehensive statewide strategy that addresses the actions 

identified in SSB 5637 (WPN and Aspect Consulting 2005). Among other things, the 

Plan is intended to provide information regarding trends in fish, water, and habitat 

conditions and assess effectiveness of actions taken to improve watershed health and 

provide for salmon recovery. The strategy includes documentation of fish population 

trends in some areas of the state; however, the Klickitat River watershed is not one of the 

areas included to date in that monitoring effort. The strategy is also monitoring the 

effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts funded by the state. The monitoring of project 

effectiveness follows the Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy (Washington Salmon 

Recovery Funding Board 2003) that was developed in support of the Comprehensive 

Statewide Strategy. The Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy specified methods to assess 

a wide range of restoration and protection projects. 

On-Site Sewage Systems 

Chapter 246-272 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) regulates the on site 

disposal of sewage in the state. The law is applicable to septic systems as well as larger 

on-site systems. The rule addresses location of systems, site evaluations, design, 

installation, inspection, operation and maintenance, repair, abandonment, and other areas 

of concern. The rule helps to prevent the discharge of sewage into fish-bearing streams. 

Hydraulic Code 

Chapter 75.20 RCW governs construction projects within the waters of the state. The law 

requires hydraulic project approvals from the Department of Fish and Wildlife for 

wharves, bulkheads, bridges, culverts, fish habitat restoration projects, and other 

construction activities within the ordinary high water mark. This regulation helps to 

protect fish and fish habitat during construction. 

Regulation of Dairy Farms 

Chapter 90.64 RCW, the Dairy Nutrient Management Act, includes a number of 

requirements designed to protect water quality from dairy operations. These are in 

addition to NPDES requirements in the Federal and state Clear Water Acts for 

concentrated animal feeding operations. The Act requires inspection of all dairy farms, 

implementation of dairy nutrient management plans, technical assistance and 

enforcement (including civil penalties) against significant polluters. The intent of the 

regulation is to protect water quality and, subsequently, fish habitat. Ecology is the 

primary regulatory authority under this Act. 

Other Rules and Regulations 

There are over 100 additional rules and regulations applicable to the protection of water 

quality and fish habitat in the State of Washington. These rules cover a broad range of 

158
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

subjects such as groundwater quality standards, application of pesticides, well 

construction, motor oil disposal, utilities, solid waste disposal and recycling, water supply 

facilities, mining, energy facilities, dikes and levees, aquiculture, etcetera. Lists of 

applicable laws and rules and links to the specific requirements of those laws and rules 

can be found at: www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules. 

Yakama Reservation Forest Management Plan 

The Yakama Nation has a variety of protective land use regulations in effect on 

reservation lands. One of these is the Forest Management Plan (FMP). Under the 1993-

2002 FMP, the Yakama Administrative Forest was divided into 11 Land Use 

Management Areas (LUMA). Each LUMA was managed for multiple uses with 

emphasis on dominant resource features and objectives. The draft FMP soon to be 

ratified changes the designation of LUMAs to Management Emphasis Areas (MEA), 

which will be managed within the forest habitat types (USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and Yakama Indian Nation 2004). The forestry program is using historical species 

composition and stand densities as references for the desired future stand conditions. Just 

as with the health of aquatic systems, forest health describes the ability of a forest 

ecosystem to remain productive, to maintain a diversity of plants and animals, aesthetic 

appeal, and resource sustainability, and to withstand disturbances over time. In addition, 

a healthy forest is resilient to periodic disturbances such as drought, insects, diseases, 

fires, climatic change, and management practices. 

The Forest Management Plan prescribes the number of miles and density of roads 

allowed to be built for the purpose of harvesting timber from the Administrative Forest, 

and forest treatments such as thinning and prescribed burns are being put into place to 

move the forest vegetation more toward the historical condition of seral stands rather than 

dense, late successional forest cover. Streams are classified according to their flow, use 

for domestic purposes and use by fish for spawning, rearing and migration, and buffers 

and harvest restrictions are set accordingly. The objectives are the preservation of stream 

bank and riparian cover, water quality and flow maintenance and soil stabilization (USDI 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and Yakama Indian Nation 1993). 

The draft Yakama Nation Forest Management Plan (FMP) designates Management 

Emphasis Areas that provide for special management emphasis within the closed area 

(closed to non-tribal members) of the reservation. Table III-1 lists the Management 

Emphasis Areas within the Klickitat subbasin, as well as the acreage and goal of each. 

159
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table III-1. Trust Forest and Non-Forest Areas by Management Emphasis (BIA and YN 2004). 

Management Emphasis Area Forest (Acres) Non-Forest (Acres) Total (Acres) 

General Forest 

Wildlife Winter Habitat 

Safety Corridor 

228,623 

99,684 

7,086 

11,697 

52,131 

523 

240,320 

151,815 

7,609 

Old-Growth 

Canyon 

Alpine 

Riparian 

Primitive 

Tract D Recreation 

Traditional Use 

14,485 

50,500 

41,035 

10,403 

30,990 

10,072 

1,934 

 0 

11,749 

7,062 

628 

5,197 

6,794 

407 

14,485 

62,249 

48,097 

11,031 

36,187 

16,866 

2,341 

Total Acres 494,812 96,188 591,000 

Court-mandated buffers on salmon-supporting waters 

In January 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle 

ordered protections to prevent the potential adverse effects of any of 54 pesticides on 

threatened and endangered salmonids. Under the order, buffer zones are required for the 

application of any of the 54 pesticides that received a “likely to adversely affect” 

determination as a result of EPA review. The order prohibits ground applications of 

these pesticides within 20 yards (60 feet) of streams and other water bodies accessible to 

salmon. The order also requires a buffer zone of 100 yards (300 feet) for aerial 

applications. The buffer zones remain in effect until the conclusion of the EPA 

consultations with NMFS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the 

January 2004 order in June 2005. The no-spray buffers will remain in effect until EPA 

and NMFS complete the pesticide consultation process (WSDA 2006). Streams in the 

Klickitat subbasin that are subject to these buffers are: Blockhouse Creek, Butler Creek, 

East Prong and West Prong Little Klickitat River, mainstem Klickitat River, Little 

Klickitat River, Snyder Creek, Swale Creek, and White Creek (WSDA 2006). 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a joint partnership between 

the State of Washington and USDA, and is administered by the Washington State 

Conservation Commission and the Farm Services Agency (FSA). The agreement was 

signed in 1998 and provides incentives to restore and improve salmon and steelhead 

habitat on private land. 

The land enrolled in CREP by voluntary landowners is removed from production and 

grazing under 10 or 15-year contracts. In return, landowners plant trees and shrubs to 

stabilize the stream bank and to provide a number of additional ecological functions. 

Landowners receive annual rent, incentive and maintenance payments and cost share for 

practice installations. These payments made by FSA and the Conservation Commission, 

can result in no cost to the landowner for participation (http://crep.scc.wa.gov/). 

160
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Special Land Use Areas 

Yakama Reservation Primitive Area 

The Primitive Area, established by Tribal Council Resolution, consists of the upper 

reaches of the Klickitat River, roughly half of which drains into the West Fork of the 

Klickitat, with the other half draining directly into the Klickitat. The 1993–2002 FMP 

stated that the Primitive Area was to be maintained in its natural state and that natural 

ecological events should be allowed to occur as freely as possible, provided adjacent 

lands are not unreasonably affected. The Primitive Area runs from just north of Potato 

Hill through the Two Lakes, Howard Lake, and Fish Lake areas, then north of Jennie’s 

Butte, through McCormick Meadows, and ending just east of Diamond Butte. The 

Cascade crest forms the western edge of the Primitive Area, including Cispus Pass. 

Much of the Forest Service land north and west of the Primitive Area is also managed as 

reserve, notably the Goat Rocks Wilderness.

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area 

“The National Scenic Area was created to protect and enhance the scenic, natural, 

cultural and recreational resources of the Columbia River Gorge while encouraging 

economic development” (www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/). Part of the NSA has been 

designated along the southernmost portion of the Klickitat subbasin, adjacent to the 

Columbia River. All new development and land uses must be reviewed in the National 

Scenic Area to determine if they are consistent with the Act and the implementing landuse ordinances. The development guidelines of the management plan are implemented 

through land-use ordinances which must be consistent with the management plan. 

Klickitat Wildlife Area 

The Klickitat Wildlife Area is owned and managed by WDFW. The area covers 

approximately 14,000 acres in the western portion of Klickitat County. It lies on the east 

slope of the Cascade Mountains about halfway between the Columbia River Gorge to the 

south and Mt. Adams to the north. The Klickitat River forms a deep, twisting canyon on 

its way south to the Columbia River. This twisting characteristic has created juxtaposing 

areas of forage on south slopes and thermal cover on north slopes. General vegetation 

types include the forest riparian zone along the Klickitat River, south-facing hillsides of 

open grasslands, north-facing hillsides forested with conifers, and the flatter plateau 

covered by mixed forests of oak and pine interspersed with small grassland 

(http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/lands/r5klick.htm). 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

The Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is managed by USFWS. The refuge 

is located approximately 10 miles east of Trout Lake and 7 miles southwest of Glenwood, 

in the Glenwood Valley/Camas Prairie area. The NWR contains 5,184 acres of marsh, 

meadows, grasslands, and forest. The former mountain lake is now present only in 

winter and early spring. The area provides a spring migration area for Canada geese and 

161
Appendix III – Current Efforts and Regulations 

 Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

162

ducks, (mainly mallards and pintails) and wintering use for tundra swans, Canada geese, 

ducks, and bald eagles. Additionally, one of three known nesting areas for sandhill 

cranes in Washington is located on the NWR, as is one of two known populations of 

Oregon spotted frogs (www.r1.fws.gov/visitor/washington.html). 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was created by Congress to preserve in a free-flowing 

condition selected rivers of the nation which, with their immediate environments, possess 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historical, 

cultural, or other similar values. On November 17, 1986, the lower 11.1 miles of the 

Klickitat River (from its confluence with Wheeler Creek, near the town of Pitt, to its 

confluence with the Columbia River) were designated as a National Recreation River 

under this legislation. The “recreational” designation is for those rivers or sections of 

rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development 

along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in 

the past. The segment is administered by the Secretary of Agriculture (Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html). The Act restricts the construction of 

any dam or other water resource project on or directly affecting a designated river, or that 

which would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such a river was 

established, such as its free-flowing nature. The Act directed the Forest Service to 

develop management plans for these portions. In addition, the Act calls for completion of 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Studies on other segments of the Klickitat. The Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act on the Klickitat River does not supersede local Shoreline 

Management Plans.
Appendix IV – Estimates of Abundance 

Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Appendix IV. Estimates of Abundance Provided by 

Yakama Nation Fisheries 

The following information is provided by Yakama Nation Fisheries. The information 

contained in this appendix represents the best available information prior to the 

installation of the adult fishway trap near Lyle. Monitoring of adult passage through the 

Lyle Fishway trap is provided better estimates of population size in 2005 and 2006 (Gray 

2007) and will continue to provide better estimates of population size in the future. 

Prior to the run year of 2005-06, total abundance and escapement estimates of wild 

Klickitat steelhead are highly uncertain. Run reconstruction and escapement has relied 

upon estimated number of spawners expanded from redd surveys. In some years, High 

flow and turbidity have precluded survey ability and effectiveness resulting in low and/or 

conservative spawner escapement estimates. Beginning in 2005-06, a Mark-recapture 

procedure used for population estimates has been implemented for estimating abundance 

at the mouth of the Klickitat for both wild and hatchery steelhead. 

In the most recent ten years between 1997-98 and 2006-07, tribal harvest of wild 

steelhead in the Klickitat has ranged from 0 to 363 with an average of 107 fish annually 

(Table 1). Estimated harvest rates derived for years prior to 2005-06 are likely biased 

high as result of underestimated spawner escapement and total run size to the mouth of 

the Klickitat. For the return years of 2005-06 and 2006-07, estimated harvest rates on 

wild steelhead were 5.8 percent and 3.5 percent respectively (Table 1). Expansion of the 

spawner escapement estimates for harvest prior to these two years would suggest a much 

higher rate upward around 15 percent for the period of record of 1986-2007. Considering 

the recent two year average of 4.7 percent expanded from the mark recapture abundance 

estimates, actual harvest over the recent ten year period of record has probably ranged 

from 3.5 percent – 10 percent of the wild run to the mouth of the Klickitat. 

163
Appendix IV – Estimates of Abundance 

Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

Table IV-1. Estimated Klickitat River Steelhead Returns, Harvest and Escapement (Source Yakama Nation Fisheries). 

Klickitat River Steelhead 

Sport Tribal 

Year Run1 Hatchery Wild Total Hatchery2 Wild2 Total Escapement3 Redds4 Wild run to mouth7 1986-87 9,834 1,426 54 1,480 5,107 901 6,008 2,346 1987-88 3,751 1,480 34 1,514 1,141 201 1,342 895 1988-89 4,208 1,718 0 1,718 1,263 223 1,486 1,004 1989-90 1,702 833 0 833 536 95 631 238 95 1990-91 2,957 1,055 0 1,055 1,464 258 1,722 180 72 1991-92 3,595 823 8 831 1,620 286 1,906 858 1992-93 3,251 1,260 0 1,260 1,033 182 1,215 776 1993-94 3,402 1,211 25 1,236 1,151 203 1,354 812 1994-95 1,915 857 34 891 482 85 567 457 1995-96 1,805 864 9 873 433 76 509 423 169 1996-97 1,082 608 14 622 241 43 284 176 71 1997-98 2,185 1,062 18 1,080 455 80 535 570 228 1998-99 1,521 650 12 662 224 39 263 596 239 1999-00 1,725 575 28 603 214 0 214 908 363 2000-01 2,851 1,433 59 1,492 495 67 562 797 319 2001-02 5,264 3,708 16 3,724 724 55 779 761 304 2002-03 6,022 3,552 97 3,649 1285 363 1,648 725 290 2003-045 2,766 1,673 0 1,673 369 151 520 573 229 2004-05 2,957 1,658 0 1,658 747 153 900 399 160 2005-066 1,115 0 1,115 368 98 466 520 12 1675 2006-076 61 74 1730 Avg: 3,305 1,378 20 1,398 968 178 1,146 701 188 1,702 

164
Appendix IV – Estimates of Abundance 

Klickitat Steelhead Recovery Plan 

September 2009 

165

Note: Data for this table are from YN and WDFW databases and US v. Oregon TAC reports 

1Sum of harvest and escapement2Hatchery and wild proportions of tribal harvest are estimated as follows: For 1999-00 through 2005-06 

percentages estimated from sampling of ceremonial and subsistence harvest were applied to total tribal harvest. For 1986-87 through 1998-99 the average percentages from the 1999-2005 sampling were applied to total tribal harvest. 

3Assumes 2.5 fish per redd. For years when redd counts were unavailable or unreliable, assumes average 

escapement-to-total-harvest ratio from years when reasonably accurate redd counts were available 

4Actual redd counts expanded for mileage surveyed5Sport Harvest numbers include data from May 1 - April 30 except for 2003-04, which does not include April 

data 

6High flows and turbidity limited survey ability and effectiveness, probably biasing the redd count low.7Wild run to mouth includes Lyle Falls Mark-recapture expansions and tribal fisheries below Falls8 Estimated terminal harvest rate for wild steelhead