Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

Oregon Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan 

Appendices A through J 

APPENDIX A: Participants—Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead 

Populations Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 

APPENDIX B: Oregon Mid-Columbia Steelhead Viability Assessments 

APPENDIX C: Summary of Habitat Projects Completed within Oregon’s Mid-Columbia 

 River Steelhead Populations on Private and Public Lands from 1995-2005 

 (Data provided by OWEB, USFS, BLM and Watershed Councils) 

APPENDIX D: Hydropower Configuration and Operational Improvements Implemented 

 in Recent Years that Provide Survival Benefits to Oregon’s Mid-C 

 Steelhead Populations, and Estuary Improvements Implemented in 

 Recent Years that Provide Survival Benefits to Oregon’s Mid-C 

 Steelhead Populations 

APPENDIX E: Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Programs in Support of 

 Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Sufficiency Assessment 

APPENDIX F: Habitat Programs Implemented by Oregon State Agencies to Address 

 Limiting Factors and Threats to the Recovery of Listed Anadromous 

 Salmon and Steelhead 

APPENDIX G: Culverts which need to be improved or replaced 

APPENDIX H: Management Actions Effectiveness Model Data and Assumptions 

APPENDIX I: Cost Estimates for Recovery Actions 

APPENDIX J: Fuels Treatment as an Action Contributing to Recovery of ESA-listed 

 Anadromous Salmonids 
Appendix A 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

A-1

APPENDIX A 

Participants

Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations

Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment

Sounding Board 

Planning Team 

Limiting Factors and Threats Expert Panel 

Deschutes/Fifteenmile Management Action Team 

John Day Basin Management Action Team 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Management Action Team 
Appendix A 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

A-2

Participants--Oregon Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan 

Sounding Board

Bruce Alyward Deschutes River Conservancy 

Ken Bailey Irrigation (Board of Agriculture—The Dalles) 

Brett Brownscombe Oregon Trout 

Paula Burgess NOAA (Coordinator) 

Chuck Burley State Representative (forestry, AFRC) 

Jody Calica CTWSRO 

Rich Carmichael ODFW (State of Oregon Recovery Plan Coordinator) 

Rick Craiger OWEB 

Al Doelker BLM 

Charlie Erickson Sportsman 

Rosemary Furfey NOAA (Coordinator) 

Patricia Gainsforth SWCD--Deschutes, Tumalo Irrigation District 

Ron Graves SWCD--Wasco 

Sue Greer SWCD--Wheeler 

Carlisle Harrison Umatilla Basin Watershed Council 

Lisa Hatley Watershed Council--John Day 

Brad Houslet CTWSRO 

Gary James CTUIR 

Suzanne Knapp Governor’s Natural Resources Office 

Scot Lawrence PGE 

Lonny Macy CTWSRO 

Kevin Martin USFS--Umatilla NF 

Joe Moreau BLM 

Jo Morgan ODF 

Dave Payne WEID 

Don Ratliff PGE 

Marc Thalacker TSID 

Gary Thompson Sherman County judge 

Joe Whitworth Oregon Trout 

Brian Wolcott Watershed Council--Walla Walla 

Planning Team 

Bob Bailey DLCD 

Tim Bailey ODFW 

Paula Burgess NOAA 

Rich Carmichael ODFW (Chair and Plan Coordinator) 

Rick Craiger OWEB 

Jackie Dougan BLM 

Rod French ODFW 

Mike Gauvin CTWSRO/ODFW 
Appendix A 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

A-3

Jerry Grant ODFW 

Rosemary Furfey NOAA 

Ellen Hammond ODA 

Scott Hoefer NOAA 

Elizabeth Klicker OWRD 

Bonnie Lamb DEQ 

Travis Medema ODF 

Eric Murray NOAA 

Nicole Navas DSL 

Kathy Ramsey USFS 

Jeff Rodgers ODFW 

Jesse Schwartz CTUIR 

Tom Straughn ODA 

Barbara Taylor Consultant 

Randy Tweten NOAA 

Eric Tinus ODFW 

Tim Unterwegner ODFW 

Gary Wade NOAA 

Jeff Weber DLCD 

Bob Young ODF 

Limiting Factors and Threats Expert Panel

Tim Bailey ODFW 

Ray Beamesderfer Consultant 

Mark Chilcote ODFW 

Rod French ODFW 

Chris Jordan ODFW 

Mike Gauvin CTWSRO/ODFW 

Chris Jordan NOAA 

Sue Knapp ODFW 

Hiram Li OSU 

Michelle McClure NOAA 

Dale McCullough CRITFC 

Jay Nicholas ODFW (facilitator) 

Jeff Rodgers ODFW (facilitator) 

Jim Ruzycki ODFW 

Tim Unterwegner ODFW 
Appendix A 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

A-4

Deschutes/Fifteenmile Management Action Team 

Gary Asbridge USFS (Hood River) 

Bob Bailey DLCD 

Rick Craiger OWEB 

Jen Clark SWCD (Wasco) 

Jim Eisner BLM 

Rod French ODFW 

Mike Gauvin CTWSRO/ODFW 

Ron Graves SWCD (Wasco) 

Ellen Hammond ODA 

Scott Hoefer NOAA 

Brad Houslet CTWSRO 

Bonnie Lamb DEQ 

Steve Marx ODFW 

Travis Medema ODF 

Tom Rien ODFW 

Dan Rife USFS (Deschutes and Ochoco) 

Jeff Rodgers ODFW 

Chris Rossel USFS (Barlow) 

Dan Shively USFS (Mt. Hood) 

Barbara Taylor Consultant 

Eric Tinus ODFW 

Bob Young ODF 

John Day Basin Management Action Team 

Bob Bailey DLCD 

Linda Brown CTWSRO 

Rick Craiger OWEB 

Jason Faucera SWCD (Sherman) 

Sue Greer SWCD (Wheeler) 

Lisa Hatley NF JD Watershed Council 

Brad Houslet CTWSRO 

Gary James CTUIR 

Bonnie Lamb DEQ 

Travis Medema ODF 

John Morris BLM 

Kathy Ramsey USFS 

Dan Rife USFS 

Jim Ruzycki ODFW 

Tom Straughn ODA 

Barbara Taylor Consultant 

Rich Turner NOAA 

Tim Unterwegner ODFW 

Gary Wade NOAA 

Bob Young ODF 
Appendix A 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

A-5

Umatilla/Walla Walla Management Action Team 

Bob Bailey DLCD 

Tim Bailey ODFW 

Rick Craiger OWEB 

Jackie Dougan BLM 

Jerry Grant ODFW 

Scott Hoefer NOAA 

Bonnie Lamb DEQ 

Eric Murray NOAA 

Kathy Ramsey USFS 

Jesse Schwartz CTUIR 

Tom Straughn ODA 

Bob Young ODFW
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-1

Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-Columbia Steelhead

Viability Assessments

Viability assessments following the format provided by the ICTRT for the following 

populations: 

 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead 

 Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead 

 Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead 

 Crooked River Summer Steelhead 

 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead 

 North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead 

 Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead 

 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead 

 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead 

 Umatilla River Summer Steelhead 

 Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-2

 Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead Population 

The Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population (Figure 1) is one of five extant populations in 

the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG within the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. The 

Fifteenmile Creek population is the only population in the DPS that is classified as an entirely 

winter life history type. 

Figure 1. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor (MiSA) 

spawning areas. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the Fifteenmile Creek 

population as “basic” in size and complexity (Table 1). A steelhead population classified as 

basic has a mean minimum abundance threshold of 500 natural-origin spawners with sufficient 

intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.56 recruits per spawner at the abundance threshold level) to achieve a 

5% or less risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. In order for the Fifteenmile Creek 

population to achieve a 1% or less risk (“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, 

productivity would need to be at or greater than 2.00 recruits per spawner at the minimum 

abundance threshold. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-3

Table 1. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic potential analysis 

summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 1,420 

Stream lengths km (total) a 638 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 495 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 1.816 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 1.384 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 2.006 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 1.423 

Size / Complexity category Basic / “C” (trellis pattern) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 3 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 5 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1985 to 2005) total spawner abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production 

areas) has ranged from 231 in 1998 to 1,922 in 2004 (Figure 2). Estimates of abundance of adult 

steelhead spawners in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin are based on redds observed during single 

pass spawning ground surveys conducted annually by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) personnel in selected survey units in upper 

Fifteenmile, Ramsey, and Eightmile creeks from 1985 through 2002. Since 2003, spawning 

ground surveys have been conducted in three passes over the duration of annual spawning 

activity in one-mile survey sites selected randomly from five-mile survey units stratified across 

the currently known spawning habitat in Fifteenmile, Ramsey, Eightmile, and Fivemile creeks. 

For this analysis, observations of redds and the locations of surveys have been compiled from 

DePinto et al. (2003), Glenney et al. (2004) and unpublished data (R. French, ODFW, personal 

communication 2005). Prior to 2003, we used redd densities in surveyed reaches to estimate redd 

densities in unsurveyed reaches. The ICTRT intrinsic potential analyses (ICTRT 2007) were 

used to estimate redds per weighted m2 in surveyed reaches. To estimate total redds in the 

population, we multiply the number of redds per weighted m2 in surveyed reaches by the total 

weighted m2

 of currently used habitat in the drainages where reaches were surveyed (ICTRT 

2007). Historical intrinsic potential is estimated using a simple GIS-based model that accounts 

for differences across stream reaches (in terms of stream width, gradient, and valley width) and 

is further weighted by habitat quality. 

For the 2003 and later years, observations of redds were expanded by the sample rate, both 

temporally and spatially, to estimate each season’s total redds (redds/total spawning area/year). 

For years when streams in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin were not surveyed (most notably 

Fivemile Creek prior to 2003) assumptions were made that spawning activity in unsurveyed 

streams was generally evenly distributed and synchronous with the entire population. Average 

proportional relations relative to the Fifteenmile Creek mainstem were used to estimate spawning 

activity in unsurveyed streams (Fivemile Creek redds represent approximately 15% of the 

Fifteenmile Creek mainstem redds). 

The 2003-2005 multiple pass surveys have shown that spawning times can vary across years. 

Because the spawning ground surveys prior to 2003 were conducted once per season, variability 

in the time of spawning may be masked. However, spot checks were conducted to monitor the 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-4

level of spawning activity to determine when to conduct the surveys and recent investigations 

have shown that redd life (the length of time new redds remain visible) is sufficiently long to 

ensure that the observations from the historic single-pass surveys represent total spawning 

activity for each season (R. French, personal communication). Conversion of an annual total 

redd count to the adult population from 1985 to present assumes there are 2.1 fish per redd. This 

estimate was developed based on data from Deer Creek, a tributary to the Wallowa River (R. 

Carmichael, ODFW, personal communication,). 

To estimate the abundance of adult progeny on the spawning grounds each season, consideration 

of removals of natural-origin fish for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning hatchery-origin 

fish must be accounted for. However, no steelhead hatchery program exists in the Fifteenmile 

Creek subbasin and hatchery steelhead are not released in steelhead habitat (Anonymous 2004). 

Further, hatchery strays in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin have rarely been observed and the 

proportion is near 0%. Consequently for this analysis, the fraction of hatchery fish in the 

spawning population was assumed to be very low and mathematically assigned a value of zero. 

Virtually no spawning steelhead in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin have been sampled for age-atreturn and no population specific information exists to assign natural-origin spawning fish into 

cohorts to estimate abundance of progeny. Therefore, age-at-return information from the closest 

natural-origin steelhead population with similar winter run traits was used to apportion 

Fifteenmile Creek steelhead spawners into brood years. Year specific age-at-return data for 

Hood River natural-origin winter steelhead sampled at Powerdale Dam were used. For those 

years with inadequate sample sizes, an average age-at-return by spawning year was applied. 

Recent year natural spawners include only natural-origin fish. Hatchery strays in the Fifteenmile 

Creek population have rarely been documented. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-5

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spawners

Natural Origin Spawners

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Productivity (15-yr geometric mean R/S)

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Current Status

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

90% CI

98% CI

Figure 2. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead 

population spawner abundance estimates (1985-2005).

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year (1996-

2005) geometric mean abundance of 

natural-origin spawners was 703 (Table 2). 

During the period 1985-1999, recruits per 

spawner (R/S, in terms of spawner to 

spawner) in the Fifteenmile Creek 

population ranged from 0.37 in 1987 to 

5.58 in 1998. The annual R/S estimates 

were adjusted to reflect average smolt-toadult return rates (SAR). The 15-year 

(1985-1999) geometric mean productivity 

was 1.82 R/S, adjusted for SAR and 

delimited at 75% (375 spawners) of the 

abundance threshold. 

Table 2. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population abundance and productivity estimates. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 703 (231-1,922) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 1.0 No obs. strays 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (15-year R/S, SAR adjusted and delimited) a 1.82 (1.23-2.68) 0.20 

Productivity (15-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a (n/a) 

Trend Statistics (1985-2005) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 1.03 (0.98-1.15) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 1.03 (0.83-1.28) 0.65 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 1.03 (0.83-1.28) 0.65 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number exceeds 75% of the abundance threshold. 

This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate. 

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

The Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead 

population is at Low Risk based on 

current abundance and productivity. 

The point estimate for abundance and 

productivity resides above the 1% risk 

curve, but the population is not 

considered to be at very low risk since 

the 98% confidence interval (CI) 

extends below the 25% risk curve 

(Figure 3). However, since the 90% CI 

is above the 25% risk curve, the 

population is rated at low risk. Results 

should be viewed cautiously, as 

estimates are based on only 15 years of 

data. 

Figure 3. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population 

current abundance/productivity (A/P) compared to DPS 

viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE about the point estimate. 

Error bars = 90% CI for A, 90% and 98% CIs for P 

(point estimate >1% risk curve; the uncertainty test is 

<1% probability the combined A/P is at high risk). 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-6

Figure 4. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential habitat 

across major (MaSAs) and minor spawning areas (MiSAs). White bars represent current temperature 

limited areas that could potentially have had historical temperature limitations

Both of the recent abundance trend metrics for this population indicate an average annual 

increase of approximately 3% per year over the period, driven largely by a relatively steady 

increase from 1999 through the 2004 return (Figure 2, Table 2). Abundance in 2005 decreased 

to similar levels observed from 1988 through 1998. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified three major spawning areas (MaSAs) and five minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the Fifteenmile Creek population boundaries. The population boundary extends 

outside the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin to encompass the Rock Creek, Mill Creek, and Threemile 

Creek drainages which directly enter the Columbia River downstream from Fifteenmile Creek 

(Figure 4). These drainages account for four of the five MiSAs. Current spawning distribution 

is similar to historic with major production areas in Fifteenmile, Ramsey, Eightmile and 

Fivemile creeks. 

Spawners within the Fifteenmile Creek population include only natural-origin fish. Very few 

strays have been observed in the population and there is no hatchery program operated within the 

population. Additionally, there are few sources of winter steelhead strays in the interior 

Columbia River basin. 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Low er Fifteen

Mosier

Threemile

Chenow eth

Mill (Columbia)

Five

Eight

Upper Fifteen

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

MiSAs

MaSAs
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-7

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Fifteenmile Creek population has three MaSAs and five MiSAs distributed in a trellis 

pattern. Historic major production areas included Fifteenmile, Ramsey, Eightmile and Fivemile 

creeks. Based on the ODFW current spawning distribution database, all three MaSAs and all 

five MiSAs are now occupied. Current distribution is similar to the historic intrinsic potential 

distribution, with reductions primarily in the southeast tributaries of the Fifteenmile MaSA. The 

Fifteenmile Creek population rates at very low risk because it has three occupied MaSAs and 

five MiSAs that equate to greater than 75% of one MaSA. 

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

The current spawner distribution mirrors the historic distribution with all MaSAs currently 

occupied (Figure 5). The rating for this metric is very low risk because the current spawning 

distribution mirrors the historic distribution. Spawning ground survey data are available for 

Fifteenmile, Ramsey, and Eightmile creeks for 1985-2005. We will conduct additional analyses 

at a later date to assess occupancy based on this recent survey data. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-8

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There has been little change in gaps between current and historical distribution. The population 

is rated at very low risk because all historical MaSAs are occupied, gap distance and continuity 

has changed little, and there has been no increase in distance between this population and other 

populations in the Mid-Columbia DPS. 

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

There are limited data to allow any direct comparisons between historic life history strategies and 

current strategies. Flow and temperature changes have likely influenced movement pathways 

and continuity of habitat for juvenile steelhead. Some middle and lower mainstem reaches 

become uninhabitable during low flow summer periods. We infer that these habitat changes 

have truncated spawn timing and somewhat limited juvenile rearing diversity. Although these 

changes have had some influence on life history strategies, they have not likely influenced major 

strategies. The anadromous form of O. mykiss currently persists in the population and the winter 

Figure 5. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population current spawning distribution and spawning area 

occupancy designations.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-9

run characteristics have been maintained. We hypothesize that all historic major life history 

pathways are present, although the mean and variability may have shifted slightly. The rating is 

low risk for this metric. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

We have no direct evidence for loss or substantial change in phenotypic traits. However, 

changes in flow patterns and temperature profiles within Fifteenmile Creek subbasin have likely 

reduced variation in both juvenile migration timing and adult spawn timing. We hypothesize 

that low flows and elevated water temperatures result in a narrower window for successful smolt 

out-migration as well as truncation of adult spawn timing. However, the magnitude of the 

changes is likely small. Based on inference from habitat changes we have rated the Fifteenmile 

Creek population at low risk. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

Genetics data consist of samples from two locations within the Fifteenmile Creek population—

Eightmile and Fifteenmile creeks. This genetics information indicates that the Fifteenmile Creek 

population is well differentiated from other populations in the Cascades Eastern Slope 

Tributaries MPG. Samples within the population from Eightmile Creek are also substantially 

differentiated from Fifteenmile Creek indicating within-population variation. We have rated this 

metric as low risk. Additional samples collected in 2005 from multiple locations within the 

population will provide a more robust dataset to assess this metric in the future. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: Out-of-DPS winter steelhead strays would originate from the Hood 

River hatchery program, from releases into the White Salmon River, and from other hatcheries 

downstream of Hood River. We have documented very few strays, thus the rating is low risk. 

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There are no out-of-MPG within-DPS winter 

hatchery programs, thus the rating is very low risk. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: The only source of out-of-population 

within-MPG strays would be from the Klickitat River winter steelhead hatchery program. Since 

very few strays have been documented and their source is unknown, we have rated this metric as 

low risk. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: There is no within population hatchery program. 

This metric rated very low risk. 

The overall spawner composition rating is low risk. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-10

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution encompassed four ecoregions, of which three accounted for 

10% or more of the distribution (Figure 6). Although there have been reductions in the 

proportional distribution of the Umatilla Plateau ecoregion, these reductions were not substantial. 

The population rates at low risk. 

Table 3. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas across EPA 

level IV ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area (nontemp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

Grand Fir Mixed Forest 7.8 4.1 

Oak/Conifer Foothills 36.4 41.2 

Pleistocene Lake Basins 32.6 39.7 

Umatilla Plateau 23.3 15.0 

Figure 6. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level IV 

ecoregions.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-11

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population passes one dam in its seaward and spawning migrations, 

thus impacts on this population are relatively low. No traits are selectively affected by 

hydropower activity to the degree that they raise the risk level for this population. The rating is 

low risk for all traits. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect slightly more than 2% of the total population. There may be 

some very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the Chinook 

salmon fishery. While heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts are slight 

enough to be negligible. There is no recreational fishery in the subbasin. No phenotypic traits 

appear to be at risk as a result of harvest activity and the rating is low risk. 

Hatcheries: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated within the population, therefore, 

there are no selective effects. The rating is very low risk. 

Habitat: Altered flow profiles and increased temperatures in tributary spawning and rearing 

areas, which have been in place for many generations and are ongoing, likely impose some 

selection on juvenile and adult migration timing. However, the magnitude of the impact on any 

trait is negligible, thus the rating is low risk for all traits. 

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 

predation pressure that is felt most strongly by the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation 

is highest in May during nesting season. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selection is low risk.

No single trait has a moderate risk rating for any selective activity. Therefore, the overall 

selectivity rating for this population is low risk.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-12

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Low Risk (Table 4) for the Fifteenmile Creek 

population. There has been little change in distribution relative to the historic distribution. The 

absence of major reductions in distribution resulted in a rating of very low risk for spatial 

structure metrics. We hypothesize that there have been minor reductions in life history diversity 

and phenotypic variation, but these changes are not severe enough to raise risk levels to 

moderate. There are few hatchery fish in the population resulting in low risk for spawner 

composition. 

Table 4. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk rating. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.b VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.c VL (2) VL (2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 2) 

B.1.a L (1) L (1) 

B.1.b L (1) L (1) 

B.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk (1) 

B.2.a(1) L (1) 

B.2.a(2) VL (2) 

B.2.a(3) L (1) 

B.2.a(4) VL (2) 

Low Risk 

(1) Low Risk (1) 

B.3.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 1)

Low Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-13

Overall Viability Rating 

The Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population currently meets ICTRT viability criteria and 

is rated as a VIABLE population (Figure 7). Overall abundance and productivity is rated at Low 

Risk. The 10-year geometric mean abundance of natural-origin spawners is 703, which exceeds 

the minimum abundance threshold of 500. The 15-year geometric mean productivity (1.82 R/S; 

Table 6) exceeds the 1.56 R/S required at the minimum abundance threshold. Overall spatial 

structure and diversity is also rated at Low Risk. A relatively small increase in productivity and 

a substantial reduction in the CI are required to move this population into “highly viable” status. 

Additional data will likely decrease the standard error and move the 98% CI out of the high risk 

region. These results should be viewed with caution, as abundance and productivity estimates 

for the Fifteenmile Creek population are based on only 15 years of R/S data. Monitoring should 

be continued to allow analysis of a longer time series. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V

V

Fifteenmile 

Creek

V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M M HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

(>25%) HR HR HR HR

Figure 7. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the four viable 

salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR – 

High Risk; Shaded cells - does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-14

Data Summary – Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead Population

Data type: Expansions from multiple pass surveys in major tributary spawning reaches. Annual 

index area counts expanded to total population abundances using ratio of total to index 

area weighted intrinsic habitat (ICTRT 2007, Appendix C). Assumed 2.1 fish per redd. 

SAR: Mid-Columbia steelhead composite series (see Methods section). 

Table 5. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population abundance and productivity data used for curve fits 

and R/S analysis. Bolded values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1985 484 1.0 484 383 0.79 0.46 176 0.36

1986 1109 1.0 1109 470 0.42 0.94 443 0.40

1987 1144 1.0 1144 424 0.37 2.18 922 0.81

1988 340 1.0 340 529 1.56 0.99 524 1.54

1989 333 1.0 333 252 0.76 0.96 242 0.73

1990 542 1.0 542 423 0.78 2.83 1196 2.21

1991 291 1.0 291 265 0.91 2.33 618 2.12

1992 611 1.0 611 446 0.73 1.88 838 1.37

1993 257 1.0 257 443 1.72 1.18 524 2.04

1994 456 1.0 456 344 0.75 1.07 369 0.81

1995 257 1.0 257 569 2.21 1.23 697 2.71

1996 465 1.0 465 1216 2.62 1.03 1255 2.70

1997 412 1.0 412 830 2.01 0.76 633 1.54

1998 231 1.0 231 1292 5.58 0.49 633 2.74

1999 844 1.0 844 1385 1.64 0.52 717 0.85

2000 925 1.0 925

2001 655 1.0 655

2002 1421 1.0 1421

2003 1220 1.0 1220

2004 1922 1.0 1922

2005 388 1.0 388

Table 6. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population geometric mean abundance and productivity 

estimates (values used for current productivity area shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold 1988-1999 1985-1999 geomean

Point Est. 1.73 1.68 1.77 1.82 1.10 1.04 703

Std. Err. 0.25 0.29 0.17 0.20 0.06 0.11 0.21

count 7 6 7 6 12 15 10

R/S measures Lambda measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted

Table 7. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter estimates. 

Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 1.17 0.21 n/a n/a 0.40 0.44 37.1 1.27 0.21 n/a n/a 0.38 0.33 34.8

Const. Rec 533 72 n/a n/a n/a n/a 28.2 579 78 n/a n/a n/a n/a 27.9

Bev-Holt 50.00 386.27 547 135 0.16 0.66 31.3 7.59 13.49 709 293 0.26 0.05 30.8

Hock-Stk 2.41 15.98 221 1465 0.16 0.65 31.3 2.56 29.41 226 2595 0.27 -0.04 31.1

Ricker 2.70 0.78 0.00161 0.00049 0.17 0.64 32.1 2.58 0.73 0.00137 0.00048 0.27 0.03 31.4

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Current

Figure 8. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points were 

used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival.

Figure 9. Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points were 

used in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. Function labeled 

“Current” is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending limb at the geometric 

mean productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity estimate to the data 

series. 

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-16

Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead Population 

The Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population (Figure 1) is one of five extant 

populations in the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG within the Mid-Columbia steelhead 

DPS. 

Figure 1. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor 

(MiSA) spawning areas. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the Deschutes River 

Eastside population as “intermediate” in size and complexity (Table 1). A steelhead population 

classified as intermediate has a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 natural-origin 

spawners with a sufficient intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.35 recruits per spawner at the abundance 

threshold level) to achieve a 5% or less risk (“low risk”) of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. 

In order for the Deschutes River Eastside population to achieve a 1% or less risk (“very low 

risk”) of extinction over 100 years, productivity would need to be at or greater than 1.64 recruits 

per spawner at the minimum abundance threshold. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-17

Table 1. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic potential 

analysis summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 3,889 

Stream lengths km (total) a 974 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 884 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 2.780 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 1.772 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 4.082 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 2.253 

Size / Complexity category Intermediate / “B” (dendritic structure) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 6 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 2 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1990 to 2005) total spawner abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production 

areas) has ranged from 583 in 1993 to 9,801 in 2001 (Figure 2). Current abundance of naturalorigin adult spawners ranged from 299 in 1993 to 8,274 in 2001 (Figure 2). We examined two 

approaches for estimating the abundance of natural-origin and hatchery-origin steelhead in the 

Deschutes River Eastside population and selected one for this viability assessment. The first 

approach is similar to that used by Chilcote (2001) who conducted stock recruitment analyses for 

the combined Deschutes River Eastside and Westside populations. This method used the 

following information: estimated number of steelhead that pass above Sherars Falls (from markrecapture estimates); the number of fish recovered in fisheries and traps above Sherars Falls; and 

estimated fall back rate for hatchery fish. We conducted similar analyses for the Deschutes 

River Eastside population with the additional step of subtracting out the Westside population 

abundance estimates. We found that this approach yielded, what appeared to be, extremely high 

abundance estimates of both natural-origin and hatchery-origin spawners for the Deschutes River 

Eastside population. Using this method resulted in a high number of spawners in the mainstem 

Deschutes River that was not consistent with the two years of redd observations data. We were 

unable to adequately quantify Sherars Falls fallback rates for natural-origin and hatchery-origin 

fish. The Sherars Falls mark-recapture subtraction approach is very sensitive to the fall back 

estimates, so in the absence of accurate estimates, we chose to use an alternative approach. 

We chose to assess abundance and productivity based on estimates of spawners in the tributary 

production areas including Buck Hollow, Bakeoven, and Trout creeks. We acknowledge that 

this approach does not account for mainstem abundance and productivity. However, we believe 

this approach provides a better representation of the abundance and productivity for the 

Deschutes River Eastside population. 

Estimates of the abundance of steelhead in the tributary production areas of the Eastside 

population are based on single pass index spawning ground surveys in the major spawning areas 

(MaSAs) of Trout, Bakeoven, and Buck Hollow creeks. Annual observations of redds begin 

with the 1990 spawning year in Bakeoven and Buck Hollow creeks, and 1993 in Trout Creek 

(excluding 1994). Spawning also occurs in the mainstem, but only two surveys have been 

conducted in the mainstem downstream of Trout Creek and this portion of the Eastside 

population is not included in this assessment. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-18

To estimate spawning abundance, observed redd densities (redds/m2

) were extrapolated to 

unsurveyed areas of currently occupied spawning habitat. Variability in spawning habitat quality 

and capacity are incorporated in the abundance estimate by using the ICTRT’s historical intrinsic 

potential (ICTRT 2007) to expand redd observations per unit survey area to unsurveyed areas. 

The number of redds per weighted m2 of intrinsic habitat in the index survey areas are multiplied 

by the total m2 of weighed intrinsic habitat within each tributary production area. Total redds are 

determined as the sum of redds in Bakeoven, Buck Hollow, and Trout creeks. In Trout Creek in 

1990-1992 and 1994, when surveys were not conducted, the Trout Creek abundance was 

assumed to be 1.44 times the sum of the Buck Hollow and Bakeoven Creek abundance estimates, 

based on the proportion of spawning habitat in Trout Creek relative to all three tributaries. 

Redds are expanded to fish by multiplying total redds by 2.1 fish per redd (R. Carmichael, 

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, personal communication). This estimate was derived for 

summer steelhead in Deer Creek, a tributary of the Wallowa River. 

Abundance of progeny by spawning year was estimated by apportioning the total spawning 

abundance estimate into hatchery and natural-origin fish. For years when at least ten fish were 

examined for the presence of adipose fins in each stream, the marked fish proportion was used 

for the hatchery fraction. Field observers believe that these estimates may be biased low because 

of difficulties observing adipose fins on live fish at a distance (R. French, Oregon Department of 

Fish & Wildlife, personal communication). For years when fewer than ten fish were observed, 

the hatchery fraction was estimated based on the average ratio of the percentage of hatchery fish 

at Sherars Falls and the percentage of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds in Buckhollow and 

Bakeoven Creeks across all years. For Trout Creek we used the relationship of hatchery fraction 

between Trout Creek and Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery. 

Virtually no spawning steelhead in the Deschutes River Eastside population have been sampled 

for age-at-return and no population specific information exists to assign natural-origin spawning 

fish into cohorts to estimate the abundance of progeny (Anonymous 2004). Age structure 

information used to estimate progeny by brood year was based on the average of a two-year 

sample of scales from natural-origin adult steelhead (N=100) collected in the lower Deschutes 

River (Olsen et al. 1991). 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, strays 

from the Deschutes Subbasin Round Butte Hatchery program, and a significant number of outof-DPS hatchery strays from the Snake River basin. Origin of strays is based on recovery of 

coded-wire tagged fish in fisheries and at traps in the Deschutes River subbasin. Spawners 

originating from naturally spawning parents have comprised an average of 66% of naturally 

spawning fish since 1990. The percentage of natural-origin spawners has ranged from 21% to 

88%. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-19

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spawners

Natural Origin Spawners

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year 

(1996-2005) geometric mean 

abundance of natural-origin spawners 

was 1,599. During the period 1990-

1999, recruits per spawner (R/S, in 

terms of spawner to spawner) for 

steelhead in the Deschutes River 

Eastside population ranged from 0.24 in 

1991 to 3.97 in 1996. The annual R/S 

estimates were adjusted to reflect the 

average smolt-to-adult return rate 

(SAR). The 10-year (1990-1999) 

geometric mean productivity was 1.89 

R/S, adjusted for SAR and delimited at 

the median number of spawners (1,312; Table 2). 

Table 2. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population abundance and productivity estimates. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 1,599 (583-9,801) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.62 (0.21-0.88) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (10-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 1.88 (1.10-3.26) 0.24 

Productivity (15-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) 3.94 3.83 

Trend Statistics (1990-2005) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 1.11 (1.01-1.23) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 0.98 (0.53-1.79) 0.44 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 1.09 (0.55-2.15) 0.68 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number exceeds the median escapement. This 

approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate. 

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

Figure 2. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead 

population spawner abundance estimates (1990-2005).
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-20

Figure 3. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead 

population current abundance/productivity (A/P) compared 

to the DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE about the point 

estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A, 90% and 98% CIs for P

(point estimate >1% risk curve, therefore the uncertainty test 

results in <1% probability the combined A/P is at high risk). 

The Deschutes River Eastside 

population is at Low Risk based on 

current abundance and productivity. 

The point estimate for abundance and 

productivity resides above the 1% 

risk curve, but the population is not 

considered to be at very low risk 

since the lower end of the 98% 

confidence interval (CI) for 

productivity extends below the 25% 

risk curve. The 90% CI is above the 

25% risk curve and the population is 

rated at low risk (Figure 3). 

On average, the trend in annual 

spawners (Table 2) has been positive 

since 1990, the first year data were 

available to generate estimates for this 

population. Both hatchery-origin and 

natural-origin returns showed similar 

patterns over the time period (Figure 2). Relatively high numbers of spawners in return years 

2001-2003 contributed significantly to the average trend. In more recent years, annual spawning 

estimates have generally been at the levels observed in the initial years of the series. Under the 

assumption that hatchery and natural-origin parents were equally effective in contributing to 

natural production for this population (hatchery effectiveness = 1.0), the point estimate of 

population growth rate (λ) was below 1.0, with a 40% chance that the actual estimate exceeded 

1.0. The relative effectiveness of hatchery-origin spawners in the Deschutes River Eastside 

population is not known. An estimate of the population growth rate was calculated assuming 

that hatchery returns did not effectively contribute to natural production (hatchery effectiveness 

= 0.0; Table 2). The estimated population growth rate assuming that hatchery spawners are not 

contributing to natural production was 1.09 (78% probability of exceeding 1.0). 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified six major spawning areas (MaSAs) and two minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the Deschutes River Eastside steelhead population (Figure 4). The population 

boundaries extend above the Pelton Reregulation Dam, and therefore include areas that are 

currently inaccessible. One MaSA (Willow Creek) and one MiSA (Campbell) exist in the 

inaccessible area. The intrinsic potential analysis rated most of the Deschutes River mainstem 

spawning habitat as low potential because of the width and confinement, although steelhead 

spawning has been observed in the mainstem. Spawning is distributed broadly throughout the 

population boundaries. Steelhead production is concentrated in Buck Hollow, Bakeoven and 

Trout creeks, with some spawning in the mainstem from Trout Creek to Buck Hollow Creek. 

Spawners within the Deschutes River Eastside population include natural-origin returns, 

hatchery returns from Deschutes River origin fish produced from Round Butte Hatchery, and 

out-of-DPS hatchery strays primarily from the Snake River basin. Hatchery-origin fish comprise 

a significant proportion of the natural spawners. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Productivity (10-yr geometric mean R/S)

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Current Status

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

90% CI

98% CI
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-21

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Campbell

Jones (Deschutes East)

Ward/Antelope/Cold Camp

Willow (Deschutes)

Bakeoven

Buck Hollow

Low er Trout

Upper Trout

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

MiSAs

MaSAs

Figure 4. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential habitat 

across major and minor spawning areas. White bars represent current temperature limited areas that could 

potentially have had historical temperature limitations. 

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Deschutes River Eastside population has six MaSAs and two MiSAs distributed in a 

dendritic pattern (Figure 5). The primary production areas include Buck Hollow, Bakeoven, and 

Trout creeks. Historically, Willow Creek was also a significant production area. Based on the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) current spawner distribution database, five of 

the six MaSAs and neither of the two MiSAs are currently occupied. The MaSA that does not 

meet the occupancy criteria is Willow Creek. This MaSA is unoccupied because it is 

inaccessible. The Deschutes River Eastside population rates at very low risk for this metric 

because it has five MaSAs occupied in a non-linear configuration. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-22

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

The current spawner distribution is restricted somewhat from the historical distribution. The 

Willow Creek MaSA is unoccupied because it is inaccessible. There is also loss of spawning in 

the Jones and Campbell MiSAs (Figure 5). The population is rated at low risk for this metric 

because greater than 75% (but less than 90%) of the historic MaSAs are currently occupied. 

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

The loss of spawning in the Willow Creek drainage has caused a significant increase in the gap 

distance between the uppermost spawning in the population and the middle production areas in 

Trout Creek. Currently, with the exception of the gap created by loss of spawning in Willow 

Creek, there is little difference in gaps and continuity between the historic and current 

distributions. We have rated the population at low risk for this metric. 

Figure 5. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and 

spawning area occupancy designations.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-23

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

There are no data to allow any direct comparison of historic and current major life history 

patterns, thus we must infer from habitat information. Flow and temperature changes within the 

major spawning tributaries have changed significantly relative to historic conditions with lower 

summer flows and higher temperatures. These changes have resulted in shifts in juvenile rearing 

patterns, with less summer rearing capacity in the tributaries and mandatory movement into 

either the mainstem or upper reaches for periods of summer rearing. Adult migration and spawn 

timing have likely been impacted by flow and temperature changes. Based on scale analyses of 

Deschutes River fish collected from the mainstem, the population demonstrates multiple ages at 

smolt migration and ocean residence time as well as repeat spawning. The habitat conditions, 

with mainstem rearing opportunities, do provide for opportunity for diverse life history 

strategies. We have rated the population at low risk for this metric. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

We have no direct observations to assess loss or substantial change in phenotypic traits, thus we 

must infer from habitat conditions and habitat changes through time. The flow and temperature 

changes in the tributaries have likely influenced both adult and juvenile migration timing and 

patterns. The loss of summer rearing opportunities forces juveniles to move downstream into the 

mainstem. Adult run-timing through the tributaries, as well as spawn timing, have likely been 

narrowed to some degree. We have rated this metric at low risk because two or more traits have 

likely changed and have reduced variability. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

There are limited genetics data for the Deschutes River Eastside population. The lower East 

Folley Creek samples were not significantly differentiated from other Eastside, Westside, or 

Round Butte Hatchery samples. However, the remaining samples from eastside tributaries show 

levels of differentiation between each other and between other populations that are consistent 

with a relatively unchanged structure. As a result of these data the population is rated at low risk

for this metric. The ongoing genetics study that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

and co-managers are undertaking will yield additional and better information to assess this 

metric in the future. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: There are a significant number of out-of-DPS strays spawning 

naturally in the Deschutes River Eastside population. Estimates for stray hatchery proportions 

are derived from observations in Buck Hollow, Bakeoven, and Trout creeks. Since 1990, we 

estimated that hatchery strays have comprised from 12-90% of the spawners in this population, 

with a mean of 34.4% annually. We have no direct estimate of the proportion of out-of-DPS and 

Round Butte Hatchery strays for this population. Assuming the same proportion of out-of-DPS 

strays as we did for the Deschutes River Westside population (based on observations at Warm 

Springs National Fish Hatchery), we estimate that an average of 29% of the spawners in the 

Deschutes River Eastside population were out-of-DPS strays. Given this proportion and the 

duration of the influence we have rated the population at high risk for this metric. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-24

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There have been few out-of-MPG within-DPS 

strays recovered in the Deschutes River. The only source of this type of stray steelhead is from 

the Umatilla Hatchery program. We have rated this metric as very low risk due to the low 

proportion. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: Strays originating from the Round Butte 

Hatchery program are considered out-of-population within-MPG strays because their origin 

includes fish captured at the Pelton Reregulation Dam ladder and at Sherars Falls. The 

broodstock source likely includes both Westside and Eastside populations. Based on a total 

average hatchery proportion of 34.4% and the average proportion that Round Butte Hatchery 

strays make up of the total strays at Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery (15.5%), we 

estimated that Round Butte Hatchery strays comprise 5.4% of the naturally spawning fish 

annually. We have rated this metric as moderate risk. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: There are no within-population hatchery fish 

produced, thus we have rated this metric as very low risk. 

The overall spawner composition rating is high risk due to the high proportion of out-of DPS 

strays that spawn naturally in this population. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-25

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution encompassed five ecoregions of which three accounted for 

greater than 10% of the distribution. The current distribution is not significantly reduced from 

the historic distribution (Figure 6, Table 3). We have rated this metric at low risk because there 

were three historic ecoregions occupied and no substantial reductions. 

Table 3. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas 

across EPA level IV ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area (nontemp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

Deschutes River Valley 23.5 10.4 

Deschutes / John Day Canyons 35.0 42.3 

John Day Clarno Highlands 4.2 4.2 

John Day Clarno Uplands 28.4 34.3 

Umatilla Plateau 9.0 8.8 

Figure 6. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level IV 

ecoregions.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-26

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population passes two dams in its seaward and spawning migrations, 

thus impacts on this population are relatively low. No traits are selectively affected by 

hydropower activity to the degree that they raise the risk level for this population. The 

hydropower rating is low risk for all traits. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect slightly more than 2% of the total population. There may be a 

very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the Chinook salmon 

fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts are slight enough to 

be negligible. There is no selective impact of the recreational fishery. No phenotypic traits 

appear to be at risk as a result of harvest activity and the rating is low risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated within the population; therefore, 

the hatchery rating is very low risk. 

Habitat: Altered flow profiles and increased temperatures in tributary spawning and rearing 

areas, which have been in place for many generations and are ongoing, likely impose some 

selection on juvenile and adult migration timing, as well as spawn timing. However, the 

magnitude of selective mortality is likely negligible; therefore the habitat rating for all traits is 

low risk. 

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 

predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation is 

highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selection is low risk.

No single trait has a moderate risk rating for any selective activity. Therefore, the overall 

selectivity rating for this population is low risk.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-27

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Moderate Risk for the Deschutes River 

Eastside population (Table 4). The rating for Goal A (allowing natural rates and levels of 

spatially mediated processes) was low risk. Although the overall rating for this goal was low, 

spawning distribution is reduced significantly from the historic distribution with loss of 

spawning in the Willow Creek drainage being the primary factor. The population remains 

broadly distributed with little change in gaps and good continuity within the currently accessible 

habitat. 

The rating for Goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) was moderate risk. Habitat 

changes in key tributary production areas have likely resulted in limitations to life history 

diversity and reduction in phenotypic expression. In addition, a significant proportion of natural 

spawners are out-of-DPS strays which resulted in a high risk rating for the spawner composition 

metric. Additional genetics information is needed to assess differentiation within and between 

populations, as well as to improve our understanding of the degree of introgression of out-ofDPS strays. The ongoing genetics work of the USFWS and co-managers will provide the 

information needed to better assess the genetic health of this population. 

Table 4. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk rating. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.b L (1) L (1) 

A.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 1.3) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 1.3) 

B.1.a L (1) L (1) 

B.1.b L (1) L (1) 

B.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk (1) 

B.2.a(1) H (-1) 

B.2.a(2) VL (2) 

B.2.a(3) M (0) 

B.2.a(4) VL (2) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.3.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk 

(Mean = 0.5)

Moderate Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-28

Overall Viability Rating 

The overall rating for the Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population currently meets 

ICTRT viability criteria for VIABLE status (Figure 7). Overall abundance and productivity is 

rated at Low Risk. The 10-year geometric mean abundance of natural-origin spawners is 1,599, 

which is well above the minimum abundance threshold of 1,000. The 10-year geometric mean 

productivity (1.89 R/S; Table 6) exceeds the 1.35 R/S required at the minimum abundance 

threshold and puts the population into the very low risk region; however the 98% CI extends well 

below the 25% risk level. This wide standard error results in a low risk level for 

abundance/productivity. Overall spatial structure and diversity is rated at Moderate Risk. This 

is primarily a result of the influence of habitat changes on life history and phenotypic expression 

as well as the influence of out-of-DPS hatchery spawners. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V

V

Deschutes

River Eastside

M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M M HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

(>25%) HR HR HR HR 

Figure 7. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the four 

viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M - Maintained; HR 

– High Risk; Shaded cells - does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-29

Data Summary – Deschutes River Eastside Summer Steelhead Population

Data type: Expansions from single pass surveys in major tributary spawning reaches. Annual 

index area counts expanded to total population abundances using ratio of total to index 

area weighted intrinsic habitat (ICTRT 2007, Appendix C). Assumed 2.1 fish per redd. 

SAR: Mid-Columbia steelhead composite series (see Methods section). 

Table 5. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population abundance and productivity data used for 

curve fits and R/S analysis. Bolded values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural 

Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1990 1466 0.87 1270 432 0.29 2.83 1224 0.83

1991 1862 0.88 1640 447 0.24 2.33 1044 0.56

1992 1158 0.82 948 549 0.47 1.88 1033 0.89

1993 583 0.51 299 718 1.23 1.18 848 1.46

1994 635 0.70 442 893 1.41 1.07 956 1.51

1995 740 0.59 436 1815 2.45 1.23 2224 3.01

1996 953 0.43 407 3786 3.97 1.03 3907 4.10

1997 1829 0.46 841 6448 3.53 0.76 4922 2.69

1998 1921 0.21 401 4542 2.36 0.49 2227 1.16

1999 2397 0.61 1472 3236 1.35 0.52 1675 0.70

2000 3341 0.49 1627

2001 9801 0.84 8274

2002 5957 0.78 4665

2003 4888 0.82 3984

2004 2754 0.71 1945

2005 1274 0.87 1114

Table 6. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population geometric mean abundance and 

productivity estimates (values used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold geomean

Point Est. 1.52 1.62 1.89 1.88 1599

Std. Err. 0.36 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.32

count 5 3 5 3 10

R/S measures Lambda measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted SAR adjusted

1990-1999 1980-1999

10

0.11

1.10

n/a

n/a

n/a

Table 7. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter 

estimates. Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 1.20 0.36 n/a n/a 0.22 0.87 33.1 1.38 0.28 n/a n/a 0.22 0.68 24.9

Const. Rec 1461 454 n/a n/a n/a n/a 33.8 1672 307 n/a n/a n/a n/a 23.2

Bev-Holt 1.92 2.00 4209 7419 0.16 0.91 37.1 3.94 3.83 2680 1554 0.15 0.72 26.4

Hock-Stk 1.20 0.21 19855 0 0.22 0.87 37.4 1.38 0.14 19729 0 0.22 0.68 29.2

Ricker 1.64 1.19 0.00023 0.00049 0.16 0.90 37.1 2.86 1.21 0.00054 0.00029 0.14 0.74 26.2

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-30

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Current

Figure 8. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold 

points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival.

Figure 9. Deschutes River Eastside summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold 

points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. 

Function labeled “Current” is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending limb 

at the geometric mean productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity 

estimate to the data series. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-31

Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead Population 

The Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population (Figure 1, Figure 2) is one of five 

extant populations in the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG within the Mid-Columbia 

steelhead DPS. 

Figure 1. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor 

(MiSA) spawning areas - currently accessible population areas. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-32

The Deschutes River Westside population can be classified as either “large” or “intermediate” in 

size and complexity depending on whether the classification is based on historically accessible 

habitat or currently accessible habitat. These size category options exist because access to a 

considerable amount of habitat is blocked by the Pelton-Round Butte dams within the 

population, with current spawning only below the barrier (Table 3.1.3-1). A steelhead 

population classified as large has a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 natural-origin 

spawners with sufficient intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.26 recruits per spawner at the abundance 

threshold level) to achieve a 5% or less risk (“low risk”) of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. 

Alternatively, a steelhead population classified as intermediate has a mean minimum abundance 

threshold of 1,000 natural-origin spawners with sufficient intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.35 recruits 

per spawner at the abundance threshold) to achieve a 5% risk of extinction over 100 years. In 

this assessment we evaluate the population with the abundance/productivity (A/P) criteria for an 

intermediate sized population that assesses only the habitat below the Pelton Reregulation Dam. 

However, for the spatial structure/diversity (SS/D) assessment we evaluated the population based 

on the historic distribution and characteristics. Viable status for this population could not be 

Figure 2. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor 

(MiSA) spawning areas - historically accessible areas. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-33

achieved using A/P criteria for a large population because current capacity is not adequate to 

meet abundance criteria. 

Table 1. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic potential 

analysis summary. 

Metric All areas Currently Accessible 

areas 

Drainage area (km2) 6,060 3,619 

Stream lengths km (total) a 2,230 1,511 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a

 1,474 937 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2

) 5.51 2.65 

Branched stream area km2

 (weighted and temp. limited) b 5.01 2.24 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2

) 8.25 4.56 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2

) temp limited b 6.61 3.18 

Size / Complexity category Large / “B” 

(dendritic) 

Intermediate / “B” 

(dendritic) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 6 4 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 9 7 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1978 to 2005) total spawner abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production 

areas) has ranged from 154 in 1996 to 1,548 in 2003 (Figure 3). Current abundance of naturalorigin adult spawners ranged from 108 in 1996 to 1,283 in 2003 (Figure 3). Abundance 

estimates for the Deschutes River Westside population of adult spawning steelhead are the sum 

of abundance estimates for three components of the population: 

• natural-origin fish upstream of the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery (NFH) barrier 

dam at river kilometer (rkm) 16 in the Warm Springs River 

• natural-origin and hatchery fish that ascend Shitike Creek 

• natural-origin and hatchery-origin fish that remain in the mainstem Deschutes River and 

spawn from above the mouth of Trout Creek upstream to Pelton Reregulation Dam 

The data series begins in the 1978 spawning year with census counts at Warm Springs NFH and 

in the 1982 spawning year with single pass spawning ground surveys in Shitike Creek index 

survey units in that cover 67% of the currently used spawning habitat. For the mainstem, single 

pass aerial surveys were conducted in 1995 and 2001 (Pribyl 1995 and 2001), and multiple pass 

surveys were conducted in 1996 and 1997 (Zimmerman and Reeves 2000). 

To estimate spawning abundance in Shitike Creek, observed redd densities (redds/m2

) in 

surveyed reaches were used to estimate redd densities in unsurveyed areas. Variability in habitat 

quality and capacity throughout reaches in Shitike Creek is accounted for by using the ICTRT’s 

historical intrinsic potential. The ICTRT intrinsic potential analyses were used to estimate redds 

per weighted m2

 of habitat in surveyed reaches. To estimate total redds in the population we 

multiplied the number of redds per weighted m2

 in surveyed reaches by the total weighted m2 of 

currently occupied habitat in Shitike Creek (ICTRT 2007). Historical intrinsic potential is 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-34

estimated using a simple GIS-based model that accounts for differences across stream reaches in 

terms of stream width, gradient, and valley width that are further weighted by habitat quality. 

An expansion of 2.1 fish per redd was used to estimate annual spawner abundance (R. 

Carmichael, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, personal communication). This estimate 

was derived for summer steelhead in Deer Creek, a tributary of the Wallowa River. For the 

1978-1981 spawning years when spawning ground surveys were not conducted in Shitike Creek, 

the Shitike Creek abundance was assumed to represent 1.6% of the Sherars Falls escapement 

based on the average proportional relation between Shitike Creek and Sherars Falls escapement 

from 1982 to present. 

Abundance estimates for the mainstem Deschutes River upstream of Trout Creek also assume 

2.1 fish per redd. For years when spawning ground surveys were not conducted in the mainstem, 

an average relative proportion of observed spawning activity per number of fish escaping above 

Sherars Falls was applied to the Sherars Falls escapement (1.2%). 

Abundance of progeny by spawning year is estimated by apportioning the total spawning 

abundance estimate into hatchery- and natural-origin fish. The proportion of hatchery fish 

entering Shitike Creek to spawn and hatchery fish remaining in the mainstem upstream of Trout 

Creek is assumed to be identical to the proportion of hatchery fish observed at the Warms 

Springs NFH barrier. 

Virtually no spawning steelhead in the Deschutes River Westside population have been sampled 

for age-at-return, and no population specific information exists to assign natural-origin spawners 

into cohorts to estimate abundance of progeny (Anonymous 2004). Age structure information 

used to estimate progeny by brood year is based on the average of a two-year sample of scales 

from natural-origin adult steelhead (N=100) collected in the lower Deschutes River (Olsen, et al., 

1991). 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, strays 

from the Deschutes Subbasin Round Butte Hatchery program, and a significant number of outof-DPS hatchery strays from the Snake River. Natural-origin spawners have comprised an 

average of 82% of naturally spawning fish since 1978. The percentage of natural-origin 

spawners has ranged from 57% to 97%. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-35

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spawners

Natural Origin Spawners

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Abundance (10-year geometric mean)

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year (1996-

2005) geometric mean abundance of 

natural-origin spawners was 456 (Table 

2). During the period 1980-1999, recruits 

per spawner (R/S, in terms of spawner to 

spawner) for steelhead in the Deschutes 

River Westside population ranged from 

0.24 in 1987 to 3.72 in 1996. The annual 

R/S estimates were adjusted to reflect the 

average smolt-to-adult return rate (SAR). 

The 20-year (1979-1998) geometric mean 

productivity was 1.05 R/S, adjusted for 

SAR and delimited at 75% (750 spawners) 

of the minimum abundance threshold (Table 

2). 

Table 2. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population abundance and productivity estimates. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 456 (108-1283) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.75 (0.57-0.97) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (20-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 1.05 (0.81-1.37) 0.15 

Productivity (20-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a n/a 

Trend Statistics (1980-2005) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 0.99 (0.96-1.17) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 0.97 (0.78-1.20) 0.35 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 1.02 (0.81-1.29) 0.58 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number > 75% of the population’s minimum 

abundance threshold. This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate.

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

The Deschutes River Westside 

population is at High Risk based on 

current abundance and productivity. 

The point estimate for abundance 

and productivity resides below the 

25% risk curve (Figure 4). The 

upper end of the 90% confidence 

interval (CI) for productivity 

extends slightly above the 25% risk 

curve but is not significant enough 

to lower the risk rating. 

The average trend in abundance 

over the most recent 20 years has 

been just below 1.0 based on both the 

trend in ln(natural-origin spawner 

abundance) and the population growth 

Figure 3. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead 

population spawner abundance estimates (1978-2005).

Figure 4. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead 

population current abundance/productivity (A/P) compared 

to the DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE about the point 

estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A/P.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-36

rate metric (λ) with no adjustment for relative hatchery-origin spawner effectiveness (Table 2). 

The pattern in returns from 1991 through 2005 is similar to the pattern for several other MidColumbia DPS steelhead populations, including the Deschutes River Eastside; an increasing 

trend beginning in 1996 followed by an abrupt decrease to levels observed in the early 1990s. 

The estimated proportion of hatchery-origin spawners has been relatively constant at 25% over 

this time period (Table 2). The relative effectiveness of hatchery-origin spawners in contributing 

to natural production in this population is not known. The estimated population growth rate 

calculated for this population is sensitive to the input value for relative hatchery effectiveness. 

Setting the value to 0.0, the opposite extreme from 1.0, results in an estimated annual growth rate 

of 1.02 (0.58 probability of exceeding 1.0). 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-37

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified six major spawning areas (MaSAs) and nine minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) in the historically accessible habitat within the Deschutes River Westside steelhead 

population (Figure 5). In the currently accessible habitat there are four MaSAs and seven MiSAs 

(Figure 6). The Metolius River is identified as a MaSA in the historically accessible habitat; 

however there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of historical steelhead 

production in this river. Recent conclusions reached by Cramer and Beamsderfer (2001) suggest 

that the primary O mykiss life history form in the Metolius River was resident and it is likely that 

little steelhead production occurred. When we conducted the spatial structure/diversity 

assessment, we did not consider the Metolius River as a MaSA due to the uncertainty in 

historical use. Current distribution is reduced significantly from the historic distribution as a 

result of loss of accessibility to the Whychus Creek drainage.Spawning is currently concentrated 

in the Warm Springs River and Shitike Creek, as well as in the mainstem Deschutes River 

between Trout Creek and Pelton Reregulation Dam. 

Spawners within the Deschutes River Westside population include natural-origin returns, 

hatchery returns of Deschutes River origin fish produced from Round Butte Hatchery, and outof-DPS hatchery strays primarily from the Snake River basin. Hatchery-origin fish comprise a 

significant proportion of the natural spawners in Shitike Creek and the Deschutes River 

mainstem. Hatchery fish are removed from returns to the Warm Springs River at Warm Springs 

NFH, which reduces the proportion of naturally spawning hatchery fish in the population. 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Skookum

Oak Canyon

Eagle

Dry (Deschutes)

Lower Warm Springs Trib.

Trahan

Wapinitia

Seekseequa

Lower Warm Springs

Shitike

Beaver (Warm Springs)

Mill (Warm Springs)

New (Deschutes)

Upper Warm Springs

Upper Metolius

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

MiSAs

MaSAs

Figure 5. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential habitat 

across major (MaSAs) and minor spawning areas (MiSAs). White bars represent current temperature 

limited areas that could potentially have had historical temperature limitations. This figure is based on 

historically accessible areas within the population. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-38

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Skookum

Oak Canyon

Eagle

Dry (Deschutes)

Lower Warm Springs Trib.

Wapinitia

Lower Warm Springs

Shitike

Beaver (Warm Springs)

Mill (Warm Springs)

Upper Warm Springs

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

MiSAs

MaSAs

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Deschutes River Westside population has five MaSAs and nine MiSAs distributed in a 

dendritic pattern. The historic primary production areas include the Warm Springs River, Shitike 

Creek, Whychus Creek, and the Deschutes River mainstem. Based on the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) current spawner distribution database, four of the five historic 

MaSAs are currently occupied and four of the nine MiSAs are occupied. The Deschutes River 

Westside population is rated at very low risk for this metric. 

Figure 6. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential habitat 

across major (MaSAs) and minor spawning areas (MiSAs). White bars represent current temperature 

limited areas that could potentially have had historical temperature limitations. This figure is based on 

currently accessible areas within the population. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-39

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

The current spawner distribution is reduced substantially from the historic intrinsic distribution. 

One of the five historic MaSAs (Whychus) is currently unoccupied. In addition, only four of the 

nine MiSAs are occupied (Figures 7 and 8). The population is rated at low risk because 80% of 

the MaSAs are occupied. There are index spawning surveys conducted in the Warm Springs 

River drainage and the Shitike Creek drainage. Results of these surveys will be evaluated for 

future viability assessments. 

Figure 7. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and 

spawning area occupancy designations. This figure is based on currently accessible areas.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-40

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There has been a substantial change in gaps between, and continuity within, the spawning areas 

in the Deschutes River Westside population. The loss of occupancy in the Whychus MaSA has 

resulted in loss of production in the entire upper area of the population. The population is rated at 

moderate risk for this metric. 

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

There are limited data to allow any direct comparisons of historic and current major life history 

strategies. Current habitat conditions are such that the potential for diverse juvenile life history 

patterns, such as movement between tributary and mainstem, as well as tributary and mainstem 

rearing, are possible. The population demonstrates multiple ages of smolt migration and ocean 

residence time. It does not appear likely that any loss in variability or change in major life 

Figure 8. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and 

spawning area occupancy designations. This figure is based on historically accessible areas. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-41

history strategies has occurred for this population. Thus, the population rated at very low risk 

for this metric. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

We have no direct observations to assess loss or substantial changes in phenotypic traits, 

therefore we must infer from habitat conditions. However, there does not appear to be the level 

of habitat changes within the basin that would result in loss of any major traits or substantial 

shifts in the mean of multiple traits. It is likely that flow and temperature changes in the 

mainstem Columbia River, as well as temperature changes within the Deschutes River subbasin, 

have influenced adult migration timing as well as smolt migration timing to a small degree. 

Thus, we have rated the population at low risk for this metric. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

There are only a few samples available from the Deschutes River Westside population, and those 

that are available are from a small tributary, Nena Creek. These samples show similarity to both 

the Deschutes River Eastside population samples and to out-of-population hatchery samples. 

Primarily on the basis of limited information and apparent similarity to the out-of-population 

hatchery samples, we have rated the population at moderate risk for this metric. Additional 

tissue samples have been collected and will be analyzed in the near future. The genetics 

variation metric will be reassessed for this population following the completion of analyses of 

the recent samples. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: A significant number of out-of-DPS strays spawn naturally in the 

Deschutes River Westside population. Estimates of strays are derived from stray hatchery 

proportions and stray origin data collected at the Warm Springs NFH trap and expanded to 

unsampled areas in the population. Hatchery fish are removed at the Warm Springs NFH, thus 

the overall hatchery proportion in the population is less than the proportion observed at Warm 

Springs NFH. The majority of stray hatchery fish at Warm Springs NFH are out-of-DPS strays. 

We estimated that hatchery strays have comprised 18% of the natural spawners in the population 

since 1978. Of the 18%, about 15.2% were estimated as out-of-DPS strays, primarily from the 

Snake River basin. We were unable to acquire stray origin data for the most recent years, thus 

we will update the risk rating when the data are received. Given the high proportion and the 

length of time that out-of-DPS hatchery strays have been present in this population, the rating is 

high risk for this metric. 

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There have been few out-of-MPG within-DPS 

strays recovered in the Deschutes River. The only source for this type of stray fish is from the 

Umatilla Hatchery program. This metric rated at low risk due to the low proportion of strays. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: There have been no observed strays 

originating from hatchery programs operated outside the Deschutes River subbasin but within the 

MPG. The rating is very low risk. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-42

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: The Round Butte Hatchery program operates as a 

harvest augmentation program within the Deschutes River subbasin and does not use best 

management practices as described for supplementation programs. Round Butte Hatchery fish 

are present in the naturally spawning population at low levels with an average of 2.8% since 

1978. We have rated the metric at moderate risk because of the low proportion of hatchery fish 

in the natural spawning population. 

The overall spawner composition rating is high risk due to the high proportion of out-of-DPS 

strays that spawn naturally in this population. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-43

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution within historically accessible habitat encompassed seven 

ecoregions (Figures 9 and 10), of which four accounted for 10% or more of the distribution 

(Table 3). There has been no substantial shift in ecoregion distribution from the historic intrinsic 

to the current distribution (Table 3). The population rated as very low risk because there are 

four ecoregions with no substantial change in proportional distribution. 

Figure 9. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level 

IV ecoregions. This figure is based on currently accessible areas.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-44

Figure 10. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level 

IV ecoregions. This figure is based on historically accessible areas.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-45

Table 3. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas 

across EPA level IV ecoregions. 

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population passes two dams in its seaward and spawning 

migrations, thus impacts on this population are relatively low. No traits are selectively 

affected by hydropower activity to the degree that they raise the risk level for this population. 

The hydropower rating is low risk for all traits. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are 

generally less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger 

fish, the selective mortality would affect slightly more than 2% of the total population. There 

may be a very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the 

Chinook salmon fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts 

are slight enough to be negligible. There is no selective impact of the recreational fishery. 

No phenotypic traits appear to be at risk as a result of harvest activity and the rating is low 

risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: There is a hatchery program operated within this population. Hatchery 

broodstock are collected at Pelton Dam and no natural-origin fish are collected. Broodstock 

are collected in a manner which results in no selective impact for any adult phenotypic traits. 

The population is rated at very low risk of selective hatchery actions for all traits. 

Habitat: Altered flow profiles and increased temperatures in tributary spawning and rearing 

areas, which have been in place for many generations and are ongoing, likely impose some 

selection on juvenile and adult migration timing, as well as spawn timing. However, the 

magnitude of selective mortality is likely negligible; therefore the habitat rating for all traits 

is low risk. 

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

Ecoregion 

% of historical

spawning area 

(non-temp. 

limited) 

ALL AREAS 

% of currently

occupied spawning 

area (non-temp. 

limited) 

ALL AREAS 

% of historical

spawning area 

(non-temp. 

limited) 

CURRENTLY 

OCC. AREAS 

% of currently

occupied spawning 

area (non-temp. 

limited) 

CURRENTLY 

OCC. AREAS 

Umatilla Plateau 1.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 

Deschutes/John Day Canyons 10.9 27.4 19.6 27.4 

John Day / Clarno Uplands 13.0 19.3 23.4 19.3 

Deschutes River Valley 18.3 7.3 7.1 7.3 

Cascade Crest Montane Forest 8.2 4.7 10.1 4.7 

Grand Fir Mixed Forest 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 

Ponderosa Pine / Bitterbrush 

Woodland 47.6 36.8 36.1 36.8 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-46

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a sizeselective predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of 

predation is highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt 

migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to 

June. The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier 

and later out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we 

assume a moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of 

migration, the impact of this selection is low risk.

No single trait has a moderate risk rating for any selective activity. Therefore, the overall 

selectivity rating for this population is low risk.

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Moderate Risk for the Deschutes River 

Westside population (Table 4). The population rates at moderate risk for one of the spatial 

distribution metrics (Goal A: low risk overall) because the current distribution is 

substantially reduced from the historic intrinsic distribution due to blocked passages to areas 

above the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. Ratings for two diversity metrics resulted in a 

moderate risk rating for Goal B (maintaining natural patterns of variation). Genetic 

variation rated moderate due to limited data and the lack of differentiation between the 

Deschutes River samples and outside-basin hatchery samples. Samples collected in 2005-

2006 will better inform the risk associated with genetic variation. The proportion of out-ofDPS hatchery strays resulted in a high risk rating for spawner composition. Most of these 

strays originate from the Snake River basin. 

Table 4. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk 

rating. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.b L (1) L (1) 

A.1.c M (0) M (0) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 1) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 1) 

B.1.a VL (2) VL (2) 

B.1.b L (1) L (1) 

B.1.c M (0) M (0) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

B.2.a(1) H (-1) 

B.2.a(2) L (1) 

B.2.a(3) VL (2) 

B.2.a(4) M (0) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.3.a VL (2) VL (2) VL (2) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

Moderate Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-47

Overall Viability Rating 

The Deschutes River Westside steelhead population does not currently meet the ICTRT 

recommended viability criteria and the overall viability rating is considered HIGH RISK

(Figure 11). Overall abundance and productivity is rated at High Risk. The 10-year 

geometric mean abundance of natural-origin spawners is 456, which is only 46% of the 

minimum abundance threshold of 1,000. The 20-year geometric mean productivity (1.05 

R/S; Table 6) is below the viability minimum of 1.35 R/S required for an intermediate sized 

population. A substantial increase in productivity will be required to raise the productivity 

value to the low risk level. The overall spatial structure and diversity rating is at Moderate 

Risk. The genetics information that is currently being collected will better inform the 

genetics variation risk level in the future. A reduction in the proportion of naturally 

spawning out-of-DPS hatchery strays will be needed to reduce the risk rating for the spawner 

composition metric. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M M HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

 (>25%) HR HR 

HR 

Deschutes 

River Westside 

HR 

Figure 11. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the 

four viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – 

Maintained; HR – high risk; Shaded cells - does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-48

Data Summary – Deschutes River Westside Summer Steelhead Population

Data type: Expansions from single pass surveys, Warm Springs weir count. Annual index 

area counts expanded to total population abundances using ratio of total to index area 

weighted intrinsic habitat (ICTRT 2007 Appendix C). Assumed 2.1 fish per redd. 

SAR: Mid-Columbia steelhead composite series (see Methods section). 

Table 5. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population abundance and productivity data used 

for curve fits and R/S analysis. Bolded values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1980 436 0.94 410 683 1.57 0.50 345 0.79

1981 577 0.96 556 804 1.39 0.68 549 0.95

1982 839 0.97 816 789 0.94 0.46 360 0.43

1983 362 0.93 337 864 2.39 0.52 453 1.25

1984 701 0.88 616 626 0.89 0.65 405 0.58

1985 929 0.95 882 461 0.50 0.46 212 0.23

1986 711 0.94 667 373 0.52 0.94 351 0.49

1987 1198 0.86 1026 289 0.24 2.18 629 0.52

1988 898 0.76 683 280 0.31 0.99 277 0.31

1989 513 0.91 469 163 0.32 0.96 156 0.31

1990 486 0.90 435 185 0.38 2.83 523 1.08

1991 299 0.80 240 163 0.55 2.33 381 1.27

1992 525 0.72 380 189 0.36 1.88 355 0.68

1993 163 0.70 114 317 1.95 1.18 374 2.30

1994 284 0.73 206 351 1.24 1.07 375 1.32

1995 249 0.68 170 378 1.52 1.23 463 1.86

1996 154 0.70 108 573 3.72 1.03 591 3.84

1997 417 0.75 314 818 1.96 0.76 624 1.50

1998 648 0.57 370 1005 1.55 0.49 493 0.76

1999 452 0.64 290 968 2.14 0.52 501 1.11

2000 653 0.71 464

2001 914 0.83 760

2002 1226 0.77 944

2003 1548 0.83 1283

2004 611 0.79 482

2005 594 0.88 520

Table 6. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population geometric mean abundance and 

productivity estimates (values used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% lg thresh 75% int thresh median 75% lg thresh 75% int thresh 1988-1999 1980-1999 geomean

Point Est. 1.46 0.99 1.11 1.48 0.87 1.05 1.04 1.03 456

Std. Err. 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.12 0.22

count 10 19 16 10 19 16 12 20 10

Lambda measures

Not adjusted

R/S measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted

Table 7. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter 

estimates. Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 0.92 0.16 n/a n/a 0.34 0.67 52.1 0.84 0.13 n/a n/a 0.38 0.49 47.3

Const. Rec 435 59 n/a n/a n/a n/a 41.2 399 31 n/a n/a n/a n/a 18.7

Bev-Holt 16.41 54.61 465 122 0.07 0.90 43.9 50.00 78.66 407 34 0.12 0.11 21.8

Hock-Stk 2.87 0.00 152 0 0.07 0.90 44.0 2.92 16.75 137 785 0.12 0.09 21.5

Ricker 2.59 0.78 0.00191 0.00050 0.12 0.81 44.0 2.70 0.55 0.00215 0.00033 0.16 0.02 27.8

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-49

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Current

Figure 12. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points 

were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival.

Figure 13. Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold 

points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. 

Function labeled “Current” is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending 

limb at the geometric mean productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity

estimate to the data series. 

. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-50

Crooked River Summer Steelhead Population 

The functionally extirpated Crooked River summer steelhead population (Figure 1), located 

entirely above the Pelton Reregulation Dam in the Deschutes River subbasin, was historically 

part of the Cascades Eastern Slope Tributaries MPG within the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. 

Figure 1. Crooked River summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor (MiSA) 

spawning areas. 

 The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the Crooked River 

population as “very large” in size and complexity (Table 1). A steelhead population classified as 

very large has a mean minimum abundance threshold of 2,250 natural-origin spawners with 

sufficient intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.19 recruits per spawner at the abundance threshold level) to 

achieve a 5% or less risk of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. In order for the Crooked 

River population to achieve a 1% or less risk (“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, 

productivity would need to be at or greater than 14 recruits per spawner at the minimum 

abundance threshold. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-51

Table 1. Crooked River summer steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic potential analysis 

summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 11,832 

Stream lengths km (total) a 2054 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 2046 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 9.855 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 9.855 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 11.358 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 11.358 

Size / Complexity category Very Large / “B” (dendritic structure) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSA) 10 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSA) 2 

a. All stream segments ≥3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity

The Crooked River steelhead population is currently extirpated. Steelhead distribution was 

restricted in Crooked River by construction of Ochoco Dam at RM 10 in 1921 and further by 

Bowman Dam (RM 70) constructed in 1961. Access to habitat above RM 100 on the mainstem 

Deschutes River was blocked entirely by 1968 due to inadequate passage at the Pelton and 

Round Butte dams, thus terminating access to the Crooked River drainage. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity

The ICTRT has identified ten major spawning areas (MaSAs) and two minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the Crooked River steelhead population (Figure 3.1.7–2). The population 

boundaries are completely above the Pelton Reregulation Dam and, therefore, all areas are 

currently inaccessible. 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Lone Pine

Crooked Confluence

Bear 

McKay 

Upper Crooked

Lower Crooked

Ochoco

Dry River

North Fork Crooked

Beaver 

Middle Crooked

South Fork Crooked

Percentage of Area

MiSAs

MaSAs

Figure 3.1.7– 2. Crooked River summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential habitat across 

major (MaSAs) and minor (MiSAs) spawning areas. There are no areas in this population that could 

potentially have had historical temperature limitations. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-52

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Crooked River population has ten MaSAs and two MiSAs distributed in a dendritic pattern. 

All areas within this population have been extirpated due to the Pelton Reregulation Dam. 

Reintroduction of steelhead into the Crooked River subbasin is currently being planned. 

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

There is no current spawner distribution. All areas above the Pelton Reregulation Dam, 

including the Crooked River population, have been extirpated (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Crooked River summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and spawning area 

occupancy designations. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-53

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

This population is functionally extirpated and is therefore not rated. 

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

There are no data to allow any direct analyses of historic major life history patterns. This 

population is functionally extirpated and is therefore not rated. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

We have no direct observations to assess historic phenotypic traits. This population is 

functionally extirpated and is therefore not rated. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

There are no genetics data for the Crooked River population. This population is functionally 

extirpated and is therefore not rated. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

This population is functionally extirpated and is therefore not rated. 

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution encompassed eight ecoregions, of which three accounted for 

greater than 10% of the distribution (Figure 4). The Crooked River steelhead population is 

extirpated and therefore no ecoregions are currently occupied. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-54

Figure 4. Crooked River summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level IV 

ecoregions. 

Table 2. Crooked River summer steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas across EPA 

level IV ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area (nontemp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning area (nontemp. limited) 

John Day Clarno Uplands 46.7 0 

John Day Clarno Highlands 13.2 0 

Continental Zone Highlands 0.03 0 

Mesic Forest Zone 0.04 0 

Deschutes River Valley 22.53 0 

Cold Basins 2.11 0 

Pluvial Lake Basins 7.45 0 

High Lava Plains 4.98 0 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-55

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

This population is functionally extirpated and is therefore not rated. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The Crooked River summer steelhead population is not rated for spatial structure and diversity 

since it is considered to be functionally extirpated. 

Overall Viability Rating

The Crooked River summer steelhead population does not have an overall viability rating since it 

is considered to be functionally extirpated. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-56

 Lower Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population (Figure 1) is one of five 

populations in the John Day River MPG within the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. All five 

populations in the John Day River MPG are summer run. 

Figure 1. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and 

minor (MiSA) spawning areas. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the Lower Mainstem John 

Day River population as “very large” in size and complexity (Table 1) based on historical habitat 

potential (ICTRT 2007). A steelhead population classified as very large has a minimum 

abundance threshold criteria of 2,250 natural-origin spawners with sufficient intrinsic 

productivity (≥ 1.19 recruits per spawner at the threshold abundance level) to achieve a 5% or 

less risk (“low risk”) of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. In order for the Lower Mainstem 

population to achieve a 1% or less risk (“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, 

productivity would need to be at or greater than 1.41 recruits per spawner at the minimum 

abundance threshold. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-57

Table 1. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic 

potential analysis summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 9,857 

Stream lengths km (total) a 2,455 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 2,411 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 6.778 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 5.065 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 11.754 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 6.433 

Size / Complexity category Very Large / “B” (dendritic structure) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 11 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 19 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1965-2005) total abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production areas) for 

this population has ranged from 111 in 1979 to 10,557 in 1987 (Figure 2). Abundance estimates 

are based on expanded redd counts. Index surveys of steelhead redds from the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), John Day District, were used for the historical 

dataset. We used index surveys that showed relatively consistent visitation through all years. 

Survey data from Bear, Kahler, Parrish, Pine, and Thirtymile creeks were used in the analyses. 

The current spawning distribution was used for the miles of available habitat within each 

population’s range. The index redd densities were then multiplied by a correction factor to 

estimate the annual redd densities for the entire spawning distribution, based on the ratio of index 

redd densities to redd densities in 2004-2005 derived from the Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment Program (EMAP); the ratio was consistent for these years (0.36, 0.35). The 

estimated redd density for the entire spawning area (0.355 x index density) was multiplied by the 

total miles of spawning habitat currently utilized. Total annual redds were converted to fish by 

multiplying the total annual number of redds by the number of fish per redd. Fish per redd ratios 

were developed from survey data on Deer Creek in the Grande Ronde River basin and are an 

average from four years of data from complete and repeated redd surveys (censuses) above a 

weir where we have a complete fish count; the calculated average fish per redd estimate was 2.1. 

The hatchery-origin/natural-origin composition of spawners was computed separately for the 

Lower Mainstem John Day River and combined for all other populations in the MPG. Data 

included observations of positively identified fin-clipped spawners (1992-present) from 

spawning surveys. Evidence from the Deschutes River indicates that hatchery straying was 

substantially lower before 1992; because the source of strays in the John Day River basin is the 

same as the Deschutes River, we assumed a similar trend. No other data are available for earlier 

years so the hatchery fraction was set at zero. Age composition was derived from scale readings 

of creel sampled unmarked fish collected during the 1980s above Tumwater Falls. 

Recent natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents and a small 

fraction of strays from Snake and Columbia River hatchery programs. Spawners originating 

from naturally spawning parents have comprised an average of 92% of the spawners since 

hatchery strays began being documented in 1992. Since that time, the percentage of natural 

spawners has ranged from 82%-99%. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-58

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spaw ners

Natural Origin Spaw ners

Figure 3. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer 

steelhead population current abundance/productivity 

(A/P) compared to the DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE 

about the point estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A/P.

Abundance in recent years has been 

highly variable. The 10-year (1996-

2005) geometric mean abundance of 

natural-origin spawners was 1,800 

(Table 2). During the period 1975-

1997, recruits per spawner (R/S, in 

terms of spawner to spawner) for 

steelhead in the Lower Mainstem 

population ranged from 0.14 in 1987 

to 17.5 in 1979. The annual R/S 

estimates were adjusted to reflect the 

average smolt-to-adult return rate 

(SAR). The 19-year (1980-1998) 

geometric mean productivity was 2.99 

R/S, adjusted for SAR and delimited 

at 75% (1,688 spawners) of the 

abundance threshold. 

Table 2. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity 

estimates. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 1,800 (563-6,257) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.90 (0.82-1.00) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (19-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 2.99 (1.91-4.67) 0.24 

Productivity (19-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a n/a 

Trend Statistics (1980-2005) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 0.98 (0.94-1.14) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 1.00 (0.71-1.41) 0.50 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 1.01 (0.71-1.43) 0.53 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number >75% of the population’s minimum 

abundance threshold. This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate.

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

The Lower Mainstem John Day River 

population is at Moderate Risk based 

on current abundance and productivity. 

The productivity is at very low risk 

because the point estimate is above 

very low risk and the lower end of the 

adjusted standard error is above the 5% 

risk level. The abundance is at 

moderate risk because it resides 

between the 5% and 25% risk levels 

(Figure 3). 

The average trend in natural-origin 

spawner abundance over the most recent 20 

years has been just below 1.0; the 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Figure 2. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead 

population spawner abundance estimates (1965-2005).
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-59

population growth rate metric (λ), calculated with relative hatchery effectiveness set to 1.0, was 

1.00 for the same period (Table 2). The pattern in returns from 1991 through 2005 is similar to 

the pattern for several other Mid-Columbia DPS steelhead populations, including the Deschutes 

River Eastside—an increasing trend beginning in 1996 followed by an abrupt decrease to levels 

observed in the early 1990s. The estimated proportion of hatchery-origin spawners has 

averaged approximately 10% for the period. The relative effectiveness of hatchery-origin 

spawners in contributing to natural production in this population is not known. Setting the value 

to 0.0, the opposite extreme from 1.0, results in an estimated annual growth rate of 1.01 (0.53 

probability of exceeding 1.0). 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-60

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Cottonw ood Canyon

Haystack

Esau Canyon

Rhodes Canyon

Bologna

Low er Rock 1

Low er Rock 2

Johnson (John Day)

Girds

Shoofly

Jackknife

Row e

Cherry

Pine (John Day)

Kahler

Buckhorn

Ferry

Service

Currant

Cottonw ood (John Day)

Hay

Grass Valley

Long Rock

Pine Hollow

Middle Rock

Butte

Upper Rock

Bridge

Mountain

Thirtymile

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified 11 major spawning areas (MaSAs) and 19 minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the Lower Mainstem John Day River population (Figure 4). Spawning is 

distributed broadly across the landscape in numerous watersheds that flow into the lower 

mainstem of the John Day River. Moderately large drainages such as Rock, Thirtymile, Bridge, 

Service, Mountain and Butte creeks comprise a substantial proportion of the production area. In 

addition, multiple smaller drainages support production. Spawners within the Lower Mainstem 

population are predominantly natural-origin; however, outside-DPS hatchery fish, primarily from 

Snake River stocks, are present in significant proportions in some years. 

Figure 4. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic 

potential habitat across major and minor spawning areas. White bars represent the area that could 

potentially have had historical temperature limitations.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-61

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Lower Mainstem population has 11 MaSAs and 19 MiSAs distributed in a very complex 

dendritic pattern. Intrinsic potential is distributed relatively evenly across the 11 MaSAs. Based 

on the ODFW spawner distribution database all 11 of the MaSAs are currently occupied (except 

for the upper portion of the Cottonwood MaSA) and 11 of the 19 MiSAs are occupied (Figure 5). 

A total of 1,197 km of habitat is presently used for spawning. The Lower Mainstem population 

rates at very low risk for this metric. 

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

The current spawner distribution closely resembles the intrinsic potential distribution. All of the 

MaSAs are currently occupied except the upper portion of Cottonwood, and 11 of the 19 MiSAs 

are also occupied. The unoccupied MiSAs are scattered throughout the population, and, 

therefore, do not result in a change in extent and range of distribution. The rating is very low 

risk. There are six index spawning survey sites in the Lower Mainstem population. 

 

Figure 5. Current spawning distribution and spawning area occupancy designations of the Lower 

Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-62

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There has not been any significant increase in gaps relative to historic intrinsic distribution. 

Although 8 of the 19 MiSAs are not currently occupied, the remaining occupied spawning areas 

(11 MaSAs and 11 MiSAs) provide good continuity between spawning areas throughout the 

population as well as relatively unchanged gaps. The Lower Mainstem population rating is very 

low risk for this metric. 

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

The Lower Mainstem population is an A-run population that migrates to the ocean at multiple 

ages and returns after spending one or two years in the ocean (based on ages of natural-origin 

angler caught fish). These life history patterns are consistent with other A-run steelhead. There 

are limited data available to evaluate changes in life history patterns for this population; thus, 

they must be inferred based on habitat changes. This population is very large and inhabits a 

broad geographic area with habitat quality ranging from good to poor. Although current habitat 

conditions provide opportunity for expression of diverse life history strategies, habitat changes 

(particularly temperature) have likely reduced movement patterns and summer rearing 

distribution. This population rates at moderate risk for this metric because of the loss of 

tributary habitat rearing due to flow and temperature. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

There are no data to directly assess if any phenotypic traits have been substantially changed or 

lost, thus, they must inferred from habitat data. We hypothesize that there has been some 

reduction in variability of traits, such as adult entry and migration timing through the Columbia 

and John Day rivers, as well as juvenile migration timing. Although the distribution of these 

types of traits has likely been altered, the magnitude has likely not been substantial. Habitat 

conditions and absence of significant major phenotypic selective pressures indicate this 

population is at low risk. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

There are limited genetic data for John Day River populations, and no samples have been 

analyzed for the Lower Mainstem population. The major concern regarding genetic variation 

within the Lower Mainstem population relates to the spawner composition and potential genetic 

effects of out-of-DPS hatchery strays. There are no past population bottlenecks or intentional 

hatchery practices that would influence genetic variation. Due to the high proportion of hatchery 

strays and the lack of genetic data for this population, we have rated this metric as moderate 

risk. Samples were collected in 2005 and 2006 to provide an assessment of the genetic 

characteristics of the Lower Mainstem population. These data will allow for a more informed 

assessment of the genetic variation in the future. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: Based on coded wire tags (CWTs) recovered primarily from 

recreational fisheries, the proportion of out-of-DPS hatchery spawners in the Lower Mainstem 

John Day River population has ranged from 0.1 in the early 1990s to 0.18 in 2004, with a mean 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-63

of 0.07. The trend from the early 1990s to 2005 has shown a consistent increase in hatchery 

proportion through time. The hatchery fish originate primarily from the Snake River Basin. Due 

to the combined effects of the high hatchery fraction, the increasing trend through time, and the 

origin of the strays, this population rates at high risk for this metric. 

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There have been a total of four CWTs 

recovered from fish in the John Day River from out-of-MPG within-DPS origin. Three 

originated from the Umatilla Hatchery program and one from the Deschutes Hatchery program. 

It appears very few within-DPS hatchery fish stray into the John Day River, thus the rating is low 

risk for this metric. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: There are no steelhead hatchery programs 

operated within the John Day River basin; therefore, this metric is rated as very low risk. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated 

within the John Day River basin; therefore, this metric is rated as very low risk. 

The overall spawner composition rating is high risk due to the high proportion of out-of-DPS 

strays that potentially spawn in this population. 

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution of the Lower Mainstem John Day River population 

encompassed seven ecoregions (Figure 6), although only two had values greater than 10%. 

There has been little change in distribution among ecoregions and no substantial reductions. All 

ecoregions that had significant use historically remain in use currently (Table 3). The rating is 

low risk for this metric. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-64

Figure 6. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA 

level IV ecoregions. 

Table 3. Proportion of current spawning areas across EPA level IV ecoregions of the Lower Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead population. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area (nontemp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

Deschutes/John Day Canyons 32.0 35.4 

John Day Clarno Highlands 5.2 7.9 

John Day Clarno Uplands 46.6 42.7 

Mesic Forest Zone 0.2 0.4 

Pleistocene Lake Basins 6.1 0.1 

Umatilla Dissected Uplands 2.7 4.7 

Umatilla Plateau 7.2 8.9 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-65

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population passes three dams on the lower mainstem Columbia River 

in its seaward and spawning migrations. The hydropower system and associated reservoirs 

appear to impose some selection on smolt and adult migration timing. All hydropower effects 

have persisted for multiple generations and are ongoing. 

Adult migration timing: The dams create a thermal barrier in the reservoirs that delays 

and potentially induces some mortality of migrating adults. This barrier is diminished 

later in the migration season. Because the timing of the barrier varies from year to year 

and does not develop in some years, and the degree of differential survival is likely low 

although not well-understood, we rate the selection intensity as low. Heritability of this 

trait is high; thus, the hydropower rating for this trait is moderate risk. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing, and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect slightly more than 2% of the total population. There may be a 

very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the Chinook salmon 

fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts would be negligible. 

There is very limited tribal harvest of natural-origin fish within the John Day River subbasin. 

Impacts from the recreational fishery are incidental to the harvest of hatchery-origin fish and are 

not selective. No phenotypic traits appear to be at risk as a result of this activity. The harvest 

rating is low risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated within the population; therefore, 

the hatchery rating is very low risk for all traits. 

Habitat: Altered flow and increased temperatures in spawning, rearing, and the mainstem 

migration corridor, which have been in place for many generations and are ongoing, likely 

impose some selection on juvenile and adult migration timing. 

Adult migration timing: Low flows in the late summer and early fall in the John Day 

River likely expose adults that enter the river early to above normal mortality rates. 

Adult migration timing is highly heritable, but a negligible proportion of the population is 

likely subject to these effects. Thus, the impact of habitat changes on this trait is low 

risk. 

Juvenile migration timing: Late spring and early summer temperatures are elevated 

relative to historical conditions. There has likely been some affect on juvenile migration 

timing as late spring and early summer river temperatures can reach stressful levels in 

some years in the John Day River mainstem. Selection intensity is considered negligible 

and the heritability of this trait is moderate to low. The impact of habitat changes on this 

trait is low risk. 

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-66

predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation is 

highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selective factor is low risk.

There is only one trait that has a moderate rating for one selective activity. Therefore, the overall 

selectivity rating for this population is low risk.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-67

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Moderate Risk for the Lower Mainstem John 

Day River population (Table 4). The rating for Goal A (allowing natural rates and level of 

spatially mediated processes) was very low risk. The current spawner distribution is similar to 

historic with all MaSAs occupied. The MiSAs that are currently unoccupied have little influence 

on gaps and continuity, and spawners are spread over a very broad geographic area. 

The rating for Goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) was moderate risk. This rating 

was a result of moderate risk for life history and genetic variation and high risk for spawner 

composition out-of-DPS hatchery strays. The magnitude and trend in out-of-DPS hatchery 

strays are of significant concern. Analysis of genetic information will yield considerable insight 

into the genetic characteristics of this population. The extent of hatchery introgression will be 

useful information for future spatial structure/diversity risk assessments. 

Table 4. Spatial structure and diversity risk rating of the Lower Mainstem John Day River summer 

steelhead population. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.b VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.c VL (2) VL (2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 2)

B.1.a M (0) M (0) 

B.1.b L (1) L (1) 

B.1.c M (0) M (0) 

Moderate (0) 

B.2.a(1) H (-1) 

B.2.a(2) L (1) 

B.2.a(3) VL (2) 

B.2.a(4) VL (2) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.3.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

Moderate Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-68

Overall Viability Rating

The Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population does not meet viability 

criteria. However, the population does meet criteria to be rated as MAINTAINED (Figure 7). 

Overall abundance and productivity is rated at Moderate Risk. The 10-year geometric mean 

abundance of natural-origin spawners is 1,800, which is 80% of the minimum abundance 

threshold of 2,250. The 19-year geometric mean productivity (2.99 R/S; Table 6) exceeds the 

minimum required productivity of 1.19 R/S at the abundance threshold. Overall spatial structure 

and diversity is also rated at Moderate Risk. To achieve a viable rating, this population must 

improve in both abundance/productivity and spatial structure/diversity. Out-of-DPS spawners 

are the most influential factor on diversity risk. Additional data are needed to better quantify 

spawner composition to reduce the uncertainty associated with this risk metric. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M 

M 

Lower Mainstem 

John Day River 

HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

(>25%) HR HR HR HR

Figure 7. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the 

four viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – 

Maintained; HR – High Risk; Shaded cells – does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-69

Data Summary – Lower Mainstem John Day River

Data type: Redd count expansion - Index area redd counts expanded to total population estimate 

by applying ratio of average redd densities (samples across all areas to samples from 

index reaches) from EMAP surveys. Assumed 2.1 fish per redd. 

Smolt-to-Adult Return rate (SAR): Mid-Columbia composite series (see Methods). 

Table 5. Abundance and productivity data used for curve fits and R/S analysis of the Lower Mainstem John 

Day River summer steelhead population. Bold values used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1980 2329 1.00 2329 2749 1.18 0.50 1388 0.60

1981 2420 1.00 2420 5525 2.28 0.68 3773 1.56

1982 1714 1.00 1714 8654 5.05 0.46 3955 2.31

1983 1815 1.00 1815 7493 4.13 0.52 3924 2.16

1984 1916 1.00 1916 3776 1.97 0.65 2442 1.27

1985 2521 1.00 2521 2154 0.85 0.46 989 0.39

1986 7468 1.00 7468 1716 0.23 0.94 1618 0.22

1987 10557 1.00 10557 1515 0.14 2.18 3297 0.31

1988 5546 1.00 5546 1348 0.24 0.99 1335 0.24

1989 2366 1.00 2366 774 0.33 0.96 744 0.31

1990 2133 1.00 2133 703 0.33 2.83 1990 0.93

1991 1264 1.00 1264 898 0.71 2.33 2096 1.66

1992 1917 0.99 1889 945 0.49 1.88 1777 0.93

1993 986 0.99 972 892 0.90 1.18 1054 1.07

1994 593 0.97 577 1682 2.84 1.07 1801 3.04

1995 806 0.94 755 3890 4.83 1.23 4765 5.92

1996 1115 0.93 1041 5597 5.02 1.03 5776 5.18

1997 960 0.95 911 5527 5.75 0.76 4218 4.39

1998 652 0.96 625 3929 6.02 0.49 1926 2.95

1999 1933 0.98 1894

2000 6058 0.91 5524

2001 6096 0.91 5553

2002 7231 0.87 6257

2003 2512 0.85 2134

2004 1688 0.82 1380

2005 671 0.84 563

Table 6. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population geometric mean abundance and 

productivity estimates (values used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold 1987-1998 1980-1998 geomean

Point Est. 3.02 2.85 2.59 2.99 0.97 1.02 1800

Std. Err. 0.25 0.34 0.18 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.29

count 9 7 9 7 12 19 10

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted

R/S measures Lambda measures

Table 7. Stock-recruitment curve fit parameter estimates for the Lower Mainstem John Day River summer 

steelhead population. Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 1.24 0.35 n/a n/a 0.37 0.87 66.3 1.18 0.28 n/a n/a 0.34 0.82 59.6

Const. Rec 2325 426 n/a n/a n/a n/a 50.1 2202 287 n/a n/a n/a n/a 37.2

Bev-Holt 50 110 2392 476 0.16 0.86 53.2 50 91 2264 326 0.27 0.42 40.3

Hock-Stk 3.58 0.66 652 1 0.16 0.86 52.9 2.99 1.20 750 317 0.26 0.42 39.8

Ricker 3.08 0.86 0.00035 0.00008 0.29 0.77 55.4 2.52 0.59 0.00030 0.00007 0.42 0.40 48.6

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-70

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Current

Figure 8. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. 

Bold points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine 

survival.

Figure 9. Lower Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. 

Bold points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. 

Function labeled “Current” is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending limb 

at the geometric mean productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity 

estimate to the data series. 

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-71

North Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population (Figure 1) is one of five 

populations in the John Day River MPG within the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. All five 

populations in this MPG are summer run. 

Figure 1. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor 

(MiSA) spawning areas. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the North Fork population 

as “large” in size and complexity (Table 1) based on historical habitat potential (ICTRT 2007). 

A steelhead population classified as large has a mean minimum abundance threshold criteria of 

1,500 natural-origin spawners with sufficient intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.26 recruits per spawner 

at the abundance threshold level) to achieve a 5% or less risk (“low risk”) of extinction over a 

100-year timeframe. In order for the North Fork John Day River population to achieve a 1% or 

less risk (“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, productivity would need to be at or 

greater than 1.53 recruits per spawner at the minimum abundance threshold. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-72

Table 1. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic potential 

analysis summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 4,788 

Stream lengths km (total) a 1,823 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 1,678 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 5.221 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 4.917 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 6.867 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 6.474 

Size / Complexity category Large / “B” (dendritic) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 8 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 7 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1965-2005) total spawner abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production 

areas) has ranged from 369 in 1990 to 10,235 in 1965 (Figure 2). Abundance estimates are 

based on expanded redd counts. Index surveys of steelhead redds from the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), John Day District, were used for the historical dataset. We used 

index surveys that showed relatively consistent visitation through years. Survey data from 

Beaver, Fox, North Fork Trail, Middle Fork Trail, Wall and Wilson creeks were used in the 

analyses. The current spawning distribution was used for the miles of available habitat within 

the population’s range. The index redd densities were then multiplied by a correction factor 

based on the ratio of index densities to EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

Program) densities for 2004-2005; this ratio was consistent for these years (0.36, 0.35). The 

estimated redd density for the entire spawning area (0.355 x index density) was multiplied by the 

total miles of currently utilized spawning habitat. Total annual redds were converted to fish by 

multiplying the total annual number of redds by the number of fish per redd. Fish/redd ratios 

were developed from survey data on Deer Creek in the Grande Ronde River basin. The ratio is 

an average from four years of data of complete and repeated surveys (censuses) of redds above a 

weir where we have a complete count; the calculated average fish per redd estimate was 2.1. 

The hatchery-origin/natural-origin composition of spawners were computed separately for the 

Lower Mainstem John Day River population and combined for all other populations in the MPG. 

Data used to represent the North Fork population included observations of positively identified 

fin-clipped spawners (1992-present) from spawning survey observations in the four populations 

above the Lower Mainstem, and observations from rotary screw trap and seine collections of 

adults (2000-present). There is evidence from the Deschutes River that hatchery straying was 

substantially lower before 1992, and since the source of strays in the John Day River basin is the 

same as the Deschutes River, we are assuming a similar trend. No other data are available for 

earlier years so the hatchery fraction was set at zero. Age composition was derived from scale 

readings of creel sampled unmarked fish collected during the 1980s above Tumwater Falls. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, and a 

small fraction of strays from the Snake and Columbia River hatchery programs. Since 

documentation of hatchery strays began in 1992, spawners originating from naturally spawning 

parents have comprised an average of 93% of the spawners, ranging from 87-99%. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-73

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spawners

Natural Origin Spawners

Figure 3. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead 

population current abundance and productivity (A/P) 

compared to DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE about the 

point estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A, 98% CI for P (if 

point estimate >1% risk curve, the uncertainty test is <1% 

probability the combined A/P is at high risk). 

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year (1996-

2005) geometric mean abundance of 

natural-origin spawners was 1,740 

(1,898 total spawners; Table 2). During 

the period 1979-1998, recruits per 

spawner (R/S, in terms of spawner to 

spawner) for steelhead in the North Fork 

John Day River ranged from 0.10 in 

1985 to 3.07 in 1991. The annual R/S 

estimates were adjusted to reflect the 

average smolt-to-adult return rate (SAR). 

The 20-year (1979-1998) geometric 

mean productivity was 2.41 R/S, 

adjusted for SAR and delimited at 75% 

(1,125 spawners) of the abundance 

threshold (Table 2). 

Table 2. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity estimates. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 1740 (369-10,235) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.93 (0.87-1.00) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (20-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 2.41 (1.31-4.42) 0.22 

Productivity (20-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a n/a 

Trend Statistics (1980-2005) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 0.99 (0.95-1.16) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 1.00 (0.79-1.25) 0.48 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 1.00 (0.80-1.26) 0.51 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where spawner number >75% of population’s minimum abundance 

threshold. This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate. 

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

The North Fork John Day River 

population is at Very Low Risk 

based on current abundance and 

productivity. The point estimate for 

abundance and productivity is above 

the 1% risk curve (Figure 3) and the 

lower end of the 98% confidence 

interval (CI) for productivity is 

above the 25% risk curve. 

The abundance of natural-origin 

spawners in the North Fork 

population has fluctuated substantially 

over the recent 20-year period. The 

average trend in natural-origin spawner 

abundance has been 0.99; the 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

Current Status

1% risk

5% risk

25% risk

Figure 2. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead 

population spawner abundance estimates (1966-2005). 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-74

population growth rate metric (calculated with relative hatchery effectiveness set to 1.0) was 

1.00 for the same period (Table 2). The pattern in returns from 1991 through 2005 is similar to 

the pattern for several other Mid-Columbia DPS steelhead populations, including the Deschutes 

River Eastside—an increasing trend beginning in 1996 followed by an abrupt decrease to levels 

observed in the early 1990s. The estimated proportion of spawners of hatchery-origin has 

averaged approximately 7% for the period. The relative effectiveness of hatchery-origin 

spawners in contributing to natural production in this population is not known. Setting the value 

to 0.0 did not change the point estimate of the average population growth rate for the period, 

although the probability of exceeding 1.0 increased slightly from 0.48 to 0.51. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified eight major spawning areas (MaSAs) and seven minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the North Fork John Day River steelhead population (Figure 4). Spawning is 

distributed broadly throughout the population boundaries including many tributaries and 

mainstem areas of Cottonwood, Camas, Desolation, and Granite creeks and the upper North Fork 

John Day River. Spawners in the North Fork John Day River are primarily natural-origin fish; 

however, outside-DPS hatchery fish, primarily from Snake River stocks, are present in the North 

Fork population. 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Bridge (North Fork John Day)

Cabin (North Fork John Day)

Meadow (North Fork John Day)

Cabin

Ditch

Fivemile (North Fork John Day)

Meadow Brook

Potamus

Desolation

Upper NF John Day

Granite (John Day)

Big (NF John Day)

Big Wall

Owens

Lower North Fork John Day

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

MiSAs

MaSAs

Figure 4. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential 

habitat across major (MaSAs) and minor spawning areas (MiSAs). White bars represent areas that could 

potentially have had historical temperature limitations. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-75

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The North Fork John Day River population has eight MaSAs and seven MiSAs which are 

distributed in a complex dendritic pattern. Based on the ODFW spawner distribution database 

all eight MaSAs and seven MiSAs are currently occupied and a total of 1,194 km are presently 

used for spawning (Figure 5). The North Fork population rates at very low risk for this metric 

because it has more than four MaSAs occupied in a dendritic configuration. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-76

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

The current spawner distribution mirrors the historical distribution represented by the intrinsic 

potential analyses. All MaSAs and MiSAs are currently occupied (Figure 5). The current spatial 

extent and range criteria rating for the North Fork population is very low risk. Index area 

spawning surveys are conducted in six spawning tributaries in the North Fork population. 

Figure 5. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and 

spawning area occupancy designations. 

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There have been no significant increases in gaps between spawning areas. Connectivity between 

historic spawning areas has remained relatively unchanged. The North Fork population rates at 

very low risk for gaps. 

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

There are limited data for evaluating specific life history patterns of North Fork John Day River 

steelhead, and therefore we use habitat information to infer changes in life history strategies. A 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-77

significant proportion of the North Fork population resides in wilderness area with habitat 

conditions that are relatively unaltered. Habitat conditions throughout the population do 

theoretically provide the opportunity for expression of all historic life history strategies. The 

North Fork John Day River population is an A-run population with ocean migration occurring 

predominantly at age 2 and age 3, and adults returning after one or two years in the ocean. These 

life history patterns are consistent with what we observe for most A-run populations. We have 

no evidence of loss of major life history strategies, thus the rating is very low risk for this 

metric. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

Data were not available to evaluate if any phenotypic traits have been lost. We used habitat 

information to infer potential changes in phenotypic traits. Relatively unaltered habitat 

conditions across a significant proportion of the population results in the absence of significant 

phenotypic selective pressures, thus the population is at very low risk for loss of phenotypic 

traits. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

There are limited genetic data for John Day River steelhead populations, with only one sample 

from the North Fork population. The populations within the John Day MPG are not well 

differentiated from one another. There is no biological basis to explain why the samples did not 

show normal differentiation. There are no past events, such as severe population bottlenecks or 

hatchery outplanting that would explain these results. There are out-of-DPS strays in the John 

Day River basin but the degree of introgression is unknown, and the past genetic samples, which 

were collected in the 1980s, were taken at a time when stray proportions were likely lower than 

in recent years. We have assigned a rating of low risk for this metric. This rating is driven by 

the balance between apparent similarity within and between populations and the relative degree 

of differentiation. Samples were collected in 2005 that will better inform the risk assessment for 

genetic variation in the future. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: Available data were inadequate to estimate the out-of-DPS hatchery 

fraction specifically for the North Fork population. The estimates derived were based on data 

from a composite of the four populations (South Fork, Middle Fork, Upper John Day, and North 

Fork) in the John Day River MPG that are above the Lower Mainstem population. These 

estimates were calculated from observations from spawning surveys and kelt collections seined 

from the mainstem. Since 1992, the estimated hatchery fraction ranged from 0.01-0.13. The 

mean hatchery fraction was 0.067. Based on coded wire tags (CWTs) recovered primarily from 

recreational fisheries, the majority of stray hatchery fish originate from Snake River hatcheries. 

Given that the hatchery fraction of out-of-DPS strays is estimated to be greater than 0.05 for two 

or more generations, the rating is high risk for this metric. 

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There have been four fish with CWTs 

recovered in the John Day River from out-of-MPG within-DPS origin. Three originated from 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-78

the Umatilla Hatchery program and one from the Deschutes. It appears very few within-DPS 

hatchery fish stray into the John Day River, thus the rating is low risk for this metric. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: There are no steelhead hatchery 

programs operated within the John Day River basin, therefore this metric is rated very low risk. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated 

within the John Day River basin, therefore this metric is rated as very low risk. 

The overall rating for the spawner composition metric is high risk due to the high proportion of 

out-of-DPS strays that spawn naturally in this population. 

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution of the North Fork John Day River summer steelhead 

population encompassed six ecoregions, with the John Day Clarno Highlands and Mesic Forest 

zone comprising slightly over 60% of the distribution (Table 3). There are four ecoregions that 

comprise greater than 10% of the historic distribution. There has been little change in ecoregion 

distribution between intrinsic and current distribution with all six ecoregions currently occupied 

at nearly identical proportions as the intrinsic distribution (Figure 6). There have been no 

substantial reductions in any of the ecoregions. The rating for this metric is very low risk. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-79

Figure 6. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level 

IV ecoregions. 

Table 3. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas 

across EPA level IV ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning 

area (non-temp. limited) 

Cold Basins 8.3 10.4 

John Day Clarno Highlands 27.0 26.4 

John Day Clarno Uplands 26.6 16.9 

Maritime-Influenced Zone 10.4 11.9 

Melange 2.4 3.3 

Mesic Forest Zone 25.3 31.2 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-80

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population crosses three dams on the lower mainstem Columbia River 

in its seaward and spawning migrations. The hydropower system and associated reservoirs 

appear to impose some selection on smolt and adult migration timing. All hydropower effects 

have persisted for multiple generations and are ongoing. 

Adult migration timing: These dams establish a thermal barrier in the reservoirs that 

delays and potentially induces some mortality of migrating adults. This barrier is 

diminished later in the migration season. Because the timing of the barrier varies from 

year to year and does not develop in some years, and the degree of differential survival is 

likely low and not well-understood, we rate the selection intensity as low. Heritability of 

this trait is high, thus the hydropower rating for this trait is moderate risk. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect slightly more than 2% of the total population. There may be a 

very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the Chinook salmon 

fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts are slight enough to 

be negligible. There is very limited tribal harvest of natural-origin fish within the John Day River 

subbasin; impacts from the recreational fishery are incidental to hatchery-origin fish harvest and 

are not selective. No phenotypic traits appear to be at risk as a result of this activity. The 

harvest rating is low risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated within the population; therefore, 

the hatchery rating is very low risk for all traits. 

Habitat: Little change in flow profile and temperature has occurred within the population 

boundaries. However, some change has occurred in the mainstem John Day River which would 

affect the North Fork population. 

Adult migration timing: Low flows in the late summer and early fall in the John Day 

River likely expose adults that enter the river early to above normal mortality rates. 

Adult migration timing is highly heritable, but a negligible proportion of the population is 

likely subject to these effects. Thus, the impact of habitat changes on this trait is low. 

Juvenile migration timing: Late spring and early summer temperatures are elevated 

relative to historical conditions. There has likely been some effect on juvenile migration 

timing as temperatures can reach stressful levels in the John Day River mainstem in late 

spring and early summer in some years. Selection intensity is considered negligible and 

the heritability of this trait is moderate to low. The rating for this trait is low risk.

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 

predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation is 

highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-81

Juvenile migration timing: Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selective factor is low risk.

There is only one trait that has a moderate rating for one selective activity. Therefore, the overall 

selectivity rating for this population is low risk.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-82

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The combined integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Low Risk for the North Fork John 

Day River population (Table 4). The rating for Goal A (allowing natural rates and level of 

spatially mediated processes) was very low risk. The current spawner distribution mimics the 

intrinsic distribution. The population is distributed broadly across the landscape in numerous 

MaSAs and MiSAs. Good continuity exists between spawning areas and current gaps between 

spawning areas are similar to historic gaps. 

The rating for Goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) was low risk. However, there 

remains considerable uncertainty about the ratings for genetic variation and out-of-DPS hatchery 

strays in the natural spawners. Additional genetic analyses and interpretation is needed to 

determine the degree of genetic variation and differentiation, as well as to examine evidence for 

degree of stray hatchery fish introgression. We rated the metric for out-of-DPS hatchery strays 

as very high. The data used for this rating are a composite from four John Day River 

populations. Additional population-specific spawner composition data are needed to improve the 

certainty of the out-of-DPS stray hatchery risk rating. If there is significant hatchery 

introgression that is affecting the genetic variation through time then the risk rating for “genetic 

variation” will increase and the overall risk rating for Goal B and spatial structure/diversity will 

also increase. 

Table 4. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk 

rating. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.b VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.c VL (2) VL (2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 2)

B.1.a VL (2) VL (2) 

B.1.b VL (2) VL (2) 

B.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk (1) 

B.2.a(1) H (-1) 

B.2.a(2) L (1) 

B.2.a(3) VL (2) 

B.2.a(4) VL (2) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.3.a VL (2) VL (2) VL (2) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 0.75)

Low Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-83

Overall Viability Rating

The North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population currently meets ICTRT viability 

criteria and is rated HIGHLY VIABLE (Figure 7). Overall abundance and productivity is rated 

at Very Low Risk. The 10-year geometric mean abundance of natural-origin spawners is 1,740, 

which exceeds the minimum abundance threshold of 1,500. The 20-year geometric mean 

productivity (2.41 R/S; Table 6) is well above the 1.26 R/S required at the minimum abundance 

threshold. Overall spatial structure and diversity is rated at Low Risk. The ratings for genetic 

variation and out-of-DPS hatchery-origin spawner composition were the most influential on the 

overall spatial structure/diversity assessment. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the 

genetic effect of out-of-DPS strays, as well as the actual proportion of natural spawners that are 

hatchery strays. There are limited population-specific data to estimate the spawner composition 

in the North Fork population. Enhanced monitoring efforts should be undertaken to develop 

better estimates of the composition of North Fork John Day River spawners. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV

HV

North Fork John

Day River

V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M M HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

(>25%) HR HR HR HR 

Figure 7. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the four 

viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; 

HR – High Risk; Shaded cells - does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-84

Data Summary – North Fork John Day River

Data type: Redd count expansion - Index area redd counts expanded to total population estimate 

by applying ratio of average redd densities (samples across all areas to samples from 

index reaches) from EMAP surveys. Assumed 2.1 fish per redd. 

Smolt-to-Adult Return rate (SAR): Mid-Columbia composite series (see Methods). 

Table 5. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity data used 

for curve fits and R/S analysis. Bold values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1979 757 1.00 757 1358 1.79 1.94 2633 3.48

1980 2633 1.00 2633 3167 1.20 0.50 1599 0.61

1981 2390 1.00 2390 5041 2.11 0.68 3442 1.44

1982 2473 1.00 2473 4598 1.86 0.46 2101 0.85

1983 1153 1.00 1153 3383 2.94 0.52 1772 1.54

1984 704 1.00 704 1521 2.16 0.65 984 1.40

1985 5264 1.00 5264 522 0.10 0.46 240 0.05

1986 4895 1.00 4895 563 0.11 0.94 531 0.11

1987 4754 1.00 4754 1240 0.26 2.18 2699 0.57

1988 2603 1.00 2603 1460 0.56 0.99 1446 0.56

1989 687 1.00 687 925 1.35 0.96 889 1.29

1990 369 1.00 369 955 2.59 2.83 2703 7.33

1991 415 1.00 415 1274 3.07 2.33 2973 7.16

1992 2185 0.99 2154 1425 0.65 1.88 2679 1.23

1993 867 0.99 855 1036 1.19 1.18 1224 1.41

1994 1078 0.97 1050 1385 1.29 1.07 1483 1.38

1995 683 0.94 640 1922 2.82 1.23 2355 3.45

1996 2122 0.93 1981 2309 1.09 1.03 2383 1.12

1997 1013 0.95 961 2823 2.79 0.76 2155 2.13

1998 1021 0.96 978 2930 2.87 0.49 1437 1.41

1999 1660 0.98 1626

2000 2350 0.91 2143

2001 2448 0.91 2230

2002 3828 0.90 3444

2003 3093 0.89 2758

2004 1527 0.87 1328

2005 1602 0.87 1393

Table 6. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population geometric mean abundance and 

productivity estimates (values used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold 1987-1998 1979-1998 geomean

Point Est. 2.07 2.07 2.41 2.41 1.01 1.09 1740

Std. Err. 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.15 0.13

count 10 10 10 10 12 20 10

R/S measures Lambda measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted

Table 7. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter 

estimates. Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 1.17 0.27 n/a n/a 0.71 0.55 62.0 1.15 0.30 n/a n/a 1.09 0.46 67.8

Const. Rec 1653 228 n/a n/a n/a n/a 42.1 1622 230 n/a n/a n/a n/a 43.2

Bev-Holt 12.92 19.48 1871 441 0.18 0.72 44.4 50.00 68.78 1665 252 0.35 0.39 46.4

Hock-Stk 2.03 0.46 951 266 0.21 0.64 43.5 4.68 0.10 347 1 0.34 0.39 46.0

Ricker 3.76 0.60 0.00061 0.00007 0.13 0.59 31.5 4.32 0.86 0.00070 0.00008 0.29 0.11 40.1

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-85

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Current

Figure 8. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points 

were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival. 

Figure 9. North Fork John Day River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold 

points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. 

Function labeled “Current” is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending limb 

at the geometric mean productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity 

estimate to the data series. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-86

Middle Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population (Figure 1) is one of five 

populations in the John Day River MPG within the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. All five 

populations in this MPG are summer run. 

Figure 1. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and 

minor (MiSA) spawning areas. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the Middle Fork population 

as “intermediate” in size and complexity (Table 1) based on historical habitat potential (ICTRT 

2007). A steelhead population classified as intermediate has a mean minimum abundance 

threshold of 1,000 natural-origin spawners with a sufficient intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.35 recruits 

per spawner at the minimum abundance threshold) to achieve a 5% or less risk (“low risk”) of 

extinction over a 100-year timeframe. In order for the Middle Fork population to achieve a 1% 

or less risk (“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, productivity would need to be at or 

greater than 1.64 recruits per spawner at the minimum abundance threshold. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-87

Table 1. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic potential 

analysis summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 2,052 

Stream lengths km (total) a 704 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 690 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 2.592 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 2.592 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 2.963 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 2.963 

Size / Complexity category Intermediate / “B” (dendritic structure) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 2 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 0 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1966-2005) total spawner abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production 

areas) has ranged from 337 in 2005 to 3,538 in 1979 (Figure 2). Abundance estimates are based 

on expanded redd counts. Index surveys of steelhead redds from the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW), John Day District, were used for the historical dataset. We used index 

surveys that showed relatively consistent visitation through years (Beaver, Camp, Deep, and 

Lick creeks). The current spawning distribution was used for the miles of available habitat 

within each population’s range. The index redd densities were then multiplied by a correction 

factor based on the ratio of index densities to EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment Program) densities for 2004-2005; the ratio was consistent for these years (0.36, 

0.35). The estimated redd density for the entire spawning area (0.355 x index density) was 

multiplied by the total miles of currently utilized spawning habitat. Total annual redds were 

converted to fish by multiplying the total annual number of redds by the number of fish per redd. 

Fish/redd ratios were developed from four years of data of complete and repeated surveys 

(censuses) on Deer Creek in the Grande Ronde River basin of redds above a weir where we have 

a complete count. The average fish per redd estimate from Deer Creek was 2.1. 

The hatchery-origin/natural-origin composition of spawners were computed separately for the 

Lower Mainstem John Day River population, and combined for all other populations in the 

MPG. Data used to represent the Middle Fork population included observations of positively 

identified adipose fin-clipped spawners (1992-present) from spawning survey observations in the 

four populations above the Lower Mainstem population, and observations from rotary screw trap 

and seine collections of adults (2000-present). There is evidence from the Deschutes River that 

hatchery straying was substantially lower before 1992, and because the source of strays in the 

John Day River subbasin is the same as the Deschutes River, we are assuming a similar trend. 

No other data are available for earlier years so the hatchery fraction was set at zero. Age 

composition was derived from scale readings of creel sampled unmarked fish collected during 

the 1980s from locations above Tumwater Falls. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, and a 

small fraction of strays from the Snake and Columbia River hatchery programs. Since 

documentation of hatchery strays began in 1992, spawners originating from naturally spawning 

parents have comprised an average of 93%, ranging from 87%-99%. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-88

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spaw ners

Natural Origin Spaw ners

Figure 2. Middle Fork John Day River summer 

steelhead spawner abundance estimates (1966-2005). 

Figure 3. Middle Fork John Day River summer 

steelhead population current abundance/productivity 

(A/P) compared to the DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE 

about the point estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A/P. 

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year (1996-

2005) geometric mean abundance of 

natural-origin spawners was 756 (Table 

2). During the period 1969-1998, 

recruits per spawner (R/S, in terms of 

spawner to spawner) for steelhead in the 

Middle Fork John Day River ranged 

from 0.17 in 1992 to 3.84 in 1997. The 

annual R/S estimates were adjusted to 

reflect the average smolt-to-adult return 

rate (SAR). The 20-year (1979-1998) 

geometric mean productivity was 2.45 

R/S, adjusted for SAR and delimited at 

75% (563 spawners) of the abundance 

threshold (Table 2). 

Table 2. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 756 (195-3538) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.93 (0.87-1.00) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (20-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 2.45 (1.81-3.32) 0.16 

Productivity (20-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a n/a 

Trend Statistics (1980-2005) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 0.97 (0.93-1.06) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 1.00 (0.79-1.26) 0.50 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 1.01 (0.80-1.27) 0.53 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number >75% of the population’s minimum 

abundance threshold. This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate.

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

The Middle Fork John Day River 

population is at Moderate Risk based 

on current abundance and productivity. 

The point estimate is between the 5% 

and 25% risk curves (Figure 3). 

The abundance of natural-origin 

spawners in the Middle Fork population 

has fluctuated substantially over the 

recent 20-year period. The average 

trend in natural-origin spawner 

abundance has been 0.97; the 

population growth rate metric 

(calculated with relative hatchery 

effectiveness set to 1.0) was 1.00 for the 

same period (Table 2). The pattern in 

returns from 1991 through 2005 is similar 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-89

to the pattern for several other Mid-Columbia DPS steelhead populations, including the 

Deschutes River Eastside—an increasing trend beginning in 1996 followed by an abrupt 

decrease to levels observed in the early 1990s. The estimated proportion of spawners of 

hatchery-origin has averaged approximately 7% for the period. The relative effectiveness of 

hatchery-origin spawners in contributing to natural production in this population is not known. 

Setting the value to 0.0, the opposite extreme from 1.0, results in an estimated annual growth rate 

of 1.01 (0.53 probability of exceeding 1.0). 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified two major spawning areas (MaSAs) and no minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population (Figure 4). 

Spawning is distributed broadly throughout the population boundaries including mainstem areas 

in the lower and upper Middle Fork John Day River and Long Creek. There are numerous 

tributary spawning streams distributed from the lower end of the population boundary to the 

uppermost reaches. Spawners within the Middle Fork John Day River are primarily naturalorigin fish; however, outside-DPS hatchery fish, primarily from Snake River stocks, are present 

in the Middle Fork population. 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Long

Middle Fork John Day

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

Figure 4. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential 

habitat across major (MaSAs) and minor spawning areas (MiSAs). 

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Middle Fork population has two MaSAs (no MiSAs) which are distributed in a dendritic 

pattern. Based on the ODFW spawner distribution database all of the major and minor spawning 

areas are occupied and a total of 546 km are currently used for spawning (Figure 5). The Middle 

Fork population rates at low risk because it has two MaSAs occupied in a non-linear 

configuration. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-90

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

The current spawner distribution mirrors the historical distribution as represented by the intrinsic 

potential analyses. All MaSAs are currently occupied (Figure 5). The current spatial extent and 

range criteria are rated as very low risk for the Middle Fork population. There are four index 

spawning survey reaches in the Middle Fork population. Recent spawning ground surveys 

results will be analyzed for future viability assessments. 

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There has been little or no increase in gaps or loss in continuity between spawning areas within 

the Middle Fork population. Thus, the Middle Fork population rates as low risk for gaps and 

continuity. 

Figure 5. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and 

spawning area occupancy designations. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-91

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

There are no direct observations to assess loss in major life history strategies for the Middle Fork 

John Day River steelhead population; therefore we infer loss of life history diversity based on 

habitat changes. Although habitat conditions, particularly temperature, have been altered 

through time, there remains the theoretical opportunity to express diverse life history strategies 

similar to intrinsic potential. Juvenile steelhead exhibit diverse patterns of movement throughout 

their life cycle and rear in a variety of habitat types. Middle Fork John Day River steelhead are 

A-Run steelhead and appear to exhibit typical A-Run age at out-migration and ocean residence 

duration. The rating for loss of life history strategies is low risk for this metric. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

Current habitat conditions are not such that selective pressures would have significantly changed 

or eliminated any phenotypic traits. Mainstem Columbia River migrating corridor temperature 

changes and temperature changes in the John Day River have likely altered juvenile migration 

timing, thus reducing trait variability. We hypothesize that conditions have not altered the mean 

or variability of traits to the point that the risk level rises to moderate. Current habitat conditions 

and absence of other significant phenotypic selective pressure indicate that the Middle Fork 

population is at low risk for this metric. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

There are limited genetics data for John Day River steelhead populations and only one sample 

from the Middle Fork population. The samples from populations within the John Day River 

MPG are not well differentiated from one another. However, these samples were taken from a 

relatively small geographic area over a short time frame. There is no biological basis for the low 

level of differentiation. Samples were collected in the mid-1980s before any significant potential 

effects of hatchery strays. There have been no bottlenecks or other demographic factors that 

would have resulted in genetic variation impairment. There are out-of-DPS strays in the Middle 

Fork population; however the degree of introgression is unknown. We have assigned a rating of 

low risk for this metric. This rating is driven by balance between apparent similarity within and 

between populations and the relative degree of differentiation within and between the John Day 

River populations. Samples from multiple locations were collected in 2005 and will be analyzed 

to better inform the risk rating for this metric in the future. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: Inadequate data exist to estimate the out-of-DPS hatchery fraction 

specifically for the Middle Fork population. Estimates we used in this assessment were based on 

data from a composite of the four populations (South Fork, Middle Fork, Upper John Day, and 

North Fork) in the John Day River MPG that are above the Lower Mainstem population. These 

estimates are based on observations from spawning surveys and kelt collections seined from the 

mainstem. Since 1992, the estimated hatchery fraction ranged from 0.01-0.13. The mean 

hatchery fraction was 0.067. Based on recovery of hatchery fish with coded wire tags (CWTs), 

primarily from angler caught fish, the majority of stray hatchery fish originate from Snake River 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-92

hatcheries. Given that the hatchery fraction of out-of-DPS strays is estimated to be greater than 

0.05 for two or more generations, the rating is high risk for this metric. 

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There have been four steelhead with CWTs 

recovered in the John Day River MPG from out-of-MPG within-DPS origin. Three originated 

from the Umatilla Hatchery program and one from the Deschutes. It appears very few withinDPS hatchery fish stray into the John Day River, thus the rating is low risk for this metric. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: There are no steelhead hatchery 

programs operated within the John Day River basin, therefore this metric is rated as very low 

risk. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated 

within the John Day River basin, therefore this metric is rated as very low risk. 

The overall rating for the spawner composition metric is high risk, due to the high proportion of 

out-of-DPS strays that spawn naturally in this population. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-93

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution of the Middle Fork population encompassed four ecoregions, 

with the John Day Clarno Highlands, John Day Clarno Uplands, and Melange being the 

dominant ecoregions (Figure 6). There has been little change in ecoregion distribution between 

intrinsic and current. All MaSAs in the intrinsic distribution are currently occupied in a similar 

distribution pattern (Table 3). The rating is low risk for this metric. 

Figure 6. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level 

IV ecoregions. 

Table 3. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas 

across EPA level IV ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area (nontemp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning 

area (non-temp. limited) 

John Day Clarno Highlands 30.9 37.7 

John Day Clarno Uplands 46.2 38.2 

Melange 19.6 22.2 

Mesic Forest Zone 3.3 2.0 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-94

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population crosses three dams on the lower mainstem Columbia River 

in its seaward and spawning migrations. The hydropower system and associated reservoirs 

appear to impose some selection on smolt and adult migration timing. All hydropower effects 

have persisted for multiple generations and are ongoing. 

Adult migration timing: These dams establish a thermal barrier in the reservoirs that 

delays and potentially induces some mortality of migrating adults. This barrier is 

diminished later in the migration season. Because the timing of the barrier varies from 

year to year and does not develop in some years, and the degree of differential survival is 

likely low and not well-understood, we rate the selection intensity as low. Heritability of 

this trait is high, thus the hydropower rating for this trait is moderate risk. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect slightly more than 2% of the total population. There may be a 

very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the Chinook salmon 

fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts are slight enough to 

be negligible. There is very limited tribal harvest of natural-origin fish within the John Day River 

subbasin; impacts from the recreational fishery are incidental to hatchery-origin fish harvest and 

are not selective. No phenotypic traits appear to be at risk as a result of this activity. The 

harvest rating is low risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated within the population; therefore, 

the hatchery rating is very low risk for all traits. 

Habitat: Altered flow profiles and increased temperatures have been in place for many 

generations and are ongoing; there is likely some selection on juvenile and adult migration 

timing. 

Adult migration timing: Low flows in the late summer and early fall in the John Day 

River likely expose adults that enter the river early to above normal mortality rates. 

Adult migration timing is highly heritable, but a negligible proportion of the population is 

likely subject to these effects. Thus, the impact of habitat changes on this trait is low 

risk. 

Juvenile migration timing: Late spring and early summer temperatures are elevated 

relative to historical conditions. There has likely been some effect on juvenile migration 

timing as temperatures can reach stressful levels in the John Day River mainstem in late 

spring and early summer in some years. Selection intensity is considered negligible and 

the heritability of this trait is moderate to low. The rating for this trait is low risk.

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-95

predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation is 

highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selective factor is low risk.

There is only one trait that has a moderate rating for one selective activity. Therefore, the overall 

selectivity rating for this population is low risk.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-96

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Moderate Risk for the Middle Fork John Day 

River summer steelhead population (Table 4). The rating for Goal A (allowing natural rates and 

levels of spatially mediated processes) was low risk. The current spawner distribution of the 

Middle Fork population mimics the intrinsic distribution. The population is distributed broadly 

across the landscape, in both MaSAs with adequate gaps and good continuity between spawning 

areas. 

The rating for Goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) was moderate risk. Additional 

genetics analyses are needed to better assess genetic variation and hatchery introgression. This 

population was rated high risk for proportion of out-of-DPS hatchery strays based on a limited 

time series of composite John Day River population data. Better population-specific spawner 

composition data are needed to better understand the out-of-DPS hatchery stray influence. If 

there is significant hatchery introgression that affects genetic variation through time, then the risk 

rating may increase. 

Table 4. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk 

rating. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a L (1) L (1) 

A.1.b VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 1.3) 

Low Risk 

(Mean = 1.3)

B.1.a L (1) L (1) 

B.1.b L (1) L (1) 

B.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk (1) 

B.2.a(1) H (-1) 

B.2.a(2) L (1) 

B.2.a(3) VL (2) 

B.2.a(4) VL (2) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.3.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk 

(Mean = 0.5) 

Moderate Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-97

Overall Viability Rating 

The Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population does not currently meet the 

ICTRT criteria for viable status. However, the population does meet the criteria to be rated as 

MAINTAINED (Figure 7). Overall abundance and productivity is rated at Moderate Risk. 

The 10-year geometric mean abundance of natural-origin spawners is 756, which is 76% of the 

minimum abundance threshold of 1,000. The 20-year geometric mean productivity (2.45 R/S; 

Table 6) exceeds the minimum required productivity of 1.35 R/S at the abundance threshold. 

Overall spatial structure and diversity is rated at Low Risk and the lower end of the adjusted 

standard error met the low risk criteria. Increased annual abundance would allow this population 

to achieve an abundance/productivity risk rating of low and raise the overall viability rating to 

viable. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M 

M 

Middle Fork 

John Day River

HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

(>25%) HR HR HR HR 

Figure 7. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the four 

viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; 

HR – High Risk; Shaded cells - does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-98

Data Summary – Middle Fork John Day River

Data type: Redd count expansion - Index area redd counts expanded to total population estimate 

by applying ratio of average redd densities (samples across all areas to samples from 

index reaches) from EMAP surveys. Assumed 2.1 fish per redd. 

Smolt-to-Adult Return rate (SAR): Mid-Columbia composite series (see Methods). 

Table 5. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity data used 

for curve fits and R/S analysis. Bold values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1979 337 1.00 337 971 2.88 1.94 1882 5.58

1980 815 1.00 815 1749 2.15 0.50 883 1.08

1981 1318 1.00 1318 2950 2.24 0.68 2015 1.53

1982 1160 1.00 1160 3238 2.79 0.46 1480 1.28

1983 884 1.00 884 3008 3.40 0.52 1576 1.78

1984 739 1.00 739 2310 3.13 0.65 1494 2.02

1985 2373 1.00 2373 1192 0.50 0.46 547 0.23

1986 3538 1.00 3538 1028 0.29 0.94 969 0.27

1987 2899 1.00 2899 1665 0.57 2.18 3625 1.25

1988 3471 1.00 3471 1726 0.50 0.99 1710 0.49

1989 1433 1.00 1433 849 0.59 0.96 816 0.57

1990 961 1.00 961 701 0.73 2.83 1984 2.07

1991 716 1.00 716 500 0.70 2.33 1166 1.63

1992 2851 0.99 2810 497 0.17 1.88 935 0.33

1993 816 0.99 805 497 0.61 1.18 587 0.72

1994 1008 0.97 981 737 0.73 1.07 789 0.78

1995 480 0.94 450 1016 2.12 1.23 1245 2.59

1996 604 0.93 564 1215 2.01 1.03 1254 2.08

1997 460 0.95 436 1769 3.84 0.76 1350 2.93

1998 477 0.96 457 1762 3.69 0.49 864 1.81

1999 965 0.98 945

2000 1169 0.91 1066

2001 1164 0.91 1061

2002 2933 0.90 2639

2003 1187 0.89 1058

2004 1075 0.87 934

2005 224 0.87 195

Table 6. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population geometric mean abundance and 

productivity estimates (values used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold 1987-1998 1979-1998 geomean

Point Est. 2.10 2.34 1.93 2.45 0.97 1.02 756

Std. Err. 0.21 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22

count 10 7 10 7 12 20 10

R/S measures Lambda measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted

Table 7. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter 

estimates. Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 1.17 0.24 n/a n/a 0.43 0.70 58.2 1.15 0.21 n/a n/a 0.62 0.27 53.5

Const. Rec 1247 162 n/a n/a n/a n/a 39.8 1224 123 n/a n/a n/a n/a 29.3

Bev-Holt 50 302 1284 286 0.11 0.82 42.6 50 119 1259 154 0.20 0.03 32.2

Hock-Stk 2.88 1.66 439 259 0.10 0.83 42.4 3.98 22.87 307 1763 0.20 0.05 32.1

Ricker 2.99 0.67 0.00069 0.00013 0.15 0.76 43.8 2.71 0.52 0.000626 0.000113 0.27 -0.01 37.8

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-99

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Current

Figure 8. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold 

points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival. 

Figure 9. Middle Fork John Day River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold 

points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. 

Function labeled “Current” is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending 

limb at the geometric mean productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity

estimate to the data series. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-100

 South Fork John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population (Figure 1) is one of five 

populations in the John Day River MPG within the Mid-Columbia River DPS. All five 

populations in this MPG are summer run. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the South Fork population 

as “basic” in size and complexity (Table 1) based on historical habitat potential (ICTRT 2007), 

which is the smallest population classification. A steelhead population classified as basic has a 

minimum abundance threshold criteria of 500 natural-origin spawners with sufficient intrinsic 

productivity (≥ 1.56 recruits per spawner at the minimum abundance threshold) to achieve a 5% 

or less risk (“low risk”) of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. In order for the South Fork 

population to achieve a 1% or less risk (“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, 

productivity would need to be at or greater than 2.00 recruits per spawner at the minimum 

abundance threshold. 

Figure 1. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor 

(MiSA) spawning areas.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-101

Table 1. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead basin statistics and intrinsic potential analysis. 

Drainage area (km2) 1,570 

Stream lengths km (total) a 451 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 226 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 0.881 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 0.881 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 1.030 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 1.030 

Size / Complexity category Basic / “B” (dendritic structure) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 3 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 0 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1960-2005) total spawner abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production 

areas) has ranged from 105 in 1999 to 2,454 in 1962 (Figure 2). Abundance estimates are based 

on expanded redd counts. Index surveys of steelhead redds from the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW), John Day District, were used for the historical dataset. We used index 

surveys that showed relatively consistent visitation through the years. Survey data from Black 

Canyon, Deer, upper Murderer’s, lower Murderer’s, Tex, and Wind creeks were used in the 

analyses. The current spawning distribution was used for the miles of available habitat within 

each population’s range. The index redd densities were then multiplied by a correction factor 

based on the ratio of index densities to EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

Program) densities for 2004-2005. The ratio was consistent for these years (0.36, 0.35). The 

estimated redd density for the entire spawning area (0.355 x index density) was multiplied by the 

total miles of currently utilized spawning habitat. Total annual redds were converted to fish by 

multiplying the total annual number of redds by the number of fish per redd. An average ratio of 

2.1 fish per redd was developed from Deer Creek survey data in the Grande Ronde River basin. 

The ratio is an average from four years of data of complete and repeated surveys (censuses) of 

redds above a weir where we have a complete count. 

The hatchery-origin/natural-origin composition of spawners were computed separately for the 

Lower Mainstem John Day River population, and combined for all other populations in the John 

Day River MPG. Data used to represent the South Fork population included observations of 

positively identified adipose fin-clipped spawners (1992-present) from spawning survey 

observations in the four populations above the Lower Mainstem, and observations from rotary 

screw trap and seine collections of adults (2000-present). There is evidence from the Deschutes 

River that hatchery straying was substantially lower before 1992, and since the source of strays 

in the John Day River subbasin is the same as in the Deschutes River, we assumed a similar 

trend. No other data are available for earlier years so the hatchery fraction was set at zero. Age 

composition was derived from scale readings of creel sampled unmarked fish collected during 

the 1980s from locations above Tumwater Falls. 

Recent year natural spawners include recruits originating from naturally spawning parents and a 

small fraction of strays from the Snake and Columbia River hatchery programs. Since 

documentation of hatchery strays began in 1992, spawners originating from naturally spawning 

parents have comprised an average of 93%, ranging from 87% to 99%. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-102

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spaw ners

Natural Origin Spaw ners

Figure 2. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead 

population spawner abundance (1960-2005).

Figure 3. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead 

population current abundance/productivity (A/P) 

compared to the DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE about 

the point estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A/P.

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year (1996-

2005) geometric mean abundance of 

natural-origin spawners was 259 (Table 

2). During the period 1961-1998, 

recruits per spawner (R/S, in terms of 

spawner to spawner) for steelhead in the 

South Fork John Day River ranged from 

0.20 in 1987 to 13.54 in 1968. The 

annual R/S estimates were adjusted to 

reflect the average smolt-to-adult return 

rate (SAR). The 20-year (1979-1998) 

geometric mean productivity was 2.06 

R/S, adjusted for SAR and delimited at 

75% (375 spawners) of the abundance 

threshold. 

Table 2. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 259 (76-2729) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.93 (0.87-1.00) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (20-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 2.06 (1.26-3.38) 0.27 

Productivity (20-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a n/a 

Trend Statistics (1980-2005) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 0.95 (0.91-1.09) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 0.98 (0.74-1.32) 0.44 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 0.99 (0.74-1.33) 0.47 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number >75% of the population’s minimum 

abundance threshold. This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate.

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

The South Fork John Day River 

population is at Moderate Risk based 

on current abundance and productivity. 

The point estimate resides between the 

5% and 25% viability curves (Figure 3). 

The lower bound of the adjusted 

standard error for both the productivity 

and abundance extend below the 25% 

risk level. 

The average trend in abundance over the 

most recent 20 years has been below 1.0 

based on both the trend in natural-origin 

spawner abundance and the population 

growth rate metrics (Table 2). The pattern 

in returns from 1980 through 2005 is 

similar to the pattern for several other Mid0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-103

Columbia DPS steelhead populations—generally high returns in the mid-1980s, increasing trend 

beginning in 2000, followed by an abrupt decline in the most recent years. The estimated 

proportion of hatchery-origin spawners for this population has been relatively low. Therefore the 

alternative estimate of population growth rate (assuming that hatchery spawners are not 

contributing as parents to natural production) is slightly higher than, but similar to, the standard 

estimate. The data series for South Fork John Day steelhead abundance extends back to 1960. 

Spawning levels in the 1970s were generally higher than levels observed from 1980 through 

2005. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified three major spawning areas (MaSAs) and no minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the South Fork John Day River steelhead population (Figure 4). A natural 

barrier at Izee Falls limits distribution in the mainstem South Fork John Day River. Spawning is 

distributed broadly throughout the population boundaries including mainstem areas in the South 

Fork John Day River, Murderers Creek, and Canyon Creek, as well as many tributaries. 

Spawners within the South Fork population are primarily natural-origin fish; however, out-ofDPS hatchery fish, primarily from Snake River stocks, are present in the South Fork population. 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Murderers Creek

Upper South Fork John Day

Low er South Fork John Day

Percentage of Area

Figure 4. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential habitat 

across major spawning areas (MaSAs). No minor spawning areas present. 

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The South Fork John Day River has three MaSAs which are distributed in a dendritic pattern. 

Intrinsic potential is distributed relatively equally between the three MaSAs in the lower 

mainstem South Fork, Murderer’s Creek, and the upper South Fork. Based on the ODFW 

spawner distribution database, all of the spawning reaches identified within the intrinsic potential 

distribution are currently occupied, and 247 km of habitat are presently used for spawning 

(Figure 5). The South Fork population rates at low risk for this metric because all three MaSAs 

are occupied. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-104

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

The current spawning distribution based on the ODFW distribution database mirrors the 

historical distribution represented by the intrinsic potential analyses. All MaSAs are currently 

occupied (Figure 5). The South Fork population is rated very low risk for spatial extent and 

range criteria. Index area spawning surveys are conducted in five creeks, including at least one 

reach in each MaSA. Recent spawning ground surveys results will be analyzed for future 

viability assessments. 

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There has been no increase or decrease in gaps between spawning areas. Spawning habitat 

connectivity appears to be unchanged within the South Fork population. The South Fork 

population rates at very low risk for gaps and connectivity. 

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

There are no direct observations to evaluate current life history strategies relative to historic; 

therefore we infer loss of life history diversity based on habitat changes. Increased water 

Figure 5. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and 

spawning area occupancy designations.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-105

temperatures have likely reduced connectivity and quantity of habitats available during summer, 

but have not likely resulted in loss of any major life history strategies. Juvenile steelhead 

currently exhibit diverse patterns of movement to and from tributaries and mainstem reaches 

throughout the life cycle. These diverse movement patterns result in rearing in a diversity of 

habitat types. South Fork John Day River steelhead are A-run with predominant smolt age-atmigration of age 2 and age 3 and return primarily after one or two years in the ocean. These 

characteristics are typical for summer run steelhead in the Columbia River basin. Evidence does 

not indicate loss of any major life history strategies, thus the population rates at low risk for this 

metric.

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

We have no data to assess if any phenotypic traits have been significantly changed or lost. 

Although habitat conditions are altered from historic conditions the types of alterations would 

not result in loss of significant phenotypic traits. Due to water temperature changes in the 

mainstem Columbia River and John Day River, there have likely been reductions in the variation 

of adult migration timing and some reduction in distribution of summer rearing. There are no 

other major selective pressures which would cause significant changes or loss of traits. The 

South Fork population rates at low risk for phenotypic variation. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

There are limited genetics data for John Day River steelhead populations and only one sample 

from the South Fork population. The South Fork population shows greater between-population 

divergence than the other John Day River samples. Overall, the John Day River samples were 

not well differentiated. Samples were taken from a relatively small geographic area over a short 

timeframe. There is no biological basis for the low level of differentiation. Past genetic samples 

were likely taken prior to potential significant hatchery influence. For the genetic variation 

metric, we have assigned a level of low risk to the South Fork population. This rating reflects a 

balance between apparent similarity between populations in the John Day River MPG and some 

degree of differentiation. Samples were collected from multiple locations in 2005 and will be 

analyzed in the near future to better inform the genetic variation risk assessment. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: There are inadequate data to estimate the out-of-DPS hatchery 

fraction specifically for the South Fork population. Estimates we used in this assessment were 

based on data from a composite of four John Day River populations (South Fork, Middle Fork, 

North Fork and Upper Mainstem). These estimates are based on observations from spawning 

surveys and kelt collections. Since 1992 the estimate hatchery fraction has ranged from 0.01-

0.13 with a mean of 0.067. Based on coded wire tags (CWTs) recovered primarily from 

recreational fisheries, most of the strays are from Snake River hatcheries. Given the level and 

duration of strays, the population rated at high risk for this metric. 

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There have been a total of four fish with CWTs 

recovered in the John Day River from out-of-MPG within-DPS origin. Three originated from 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-106

the Umatilla Hatchery program and one from the Deschutes. It appears very few within-DPS 

hatchery fish stray into the John Day River MPG, thus the rating is low risk. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: There are no steelhead hatchery 

programs operated within the John Day River basin, and this metric is rated as very low risk. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners. There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated 

within the John Day River basin, therefore this metric is rated as very low risk. 

The overall rating for spawner composition is high risk due to the high proportion of out-of-DPS 

strays that spawn naturally in this population. 

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution of the South Fork population encompassed five ecoregions, 

with the John Day Clarno Uplands being predominant. The current distribution is nearly 

identical to the intrinsic distribution (Figure 6 and Table 3), thus we have rated this population at 

low risk because only two of the ecoregions contain greater than 10% of the historic distribution. 

Figure 6. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level 

IV ecoregions.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-107

Table 3. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas 

across EPA level IV ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

Continental Zone Highlands 16.7 16.4 

John Day Clarno Highlands 3.4 3.4 

John Day Clarno Uplands 69.9 70.2 

Melange 9.9 9.9 

Mesic Forest Zone 0.1 0.1 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-108

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population passes three dams on the lower mainstem Columbia River 

in its seaward and spawning migrations. The hydropower system and associated reservoirs 

appear to impose some selection on smolt and adult migration timing. All hydropower effects 

have persisted for multiple generations and are ongoing. 

Adult migration timing: These dams establish a thermal barrier in the reservoirs that 

delays and potentially induces some mortality of migrating adults. This barrier is 

diminished later in the migration season. Because the timing of the barrier varies from 

year to year and does not develop in some years, and the degree of differential survival is 

likely low and not well-understood, we rate the selection intensity as low. Heritability of 

this trait is high, thus the hydropower rating for this trait is moderate risk. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect slightly more than 2% of the total population. There may be a 

very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the Chinook salmon 

fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts are slight enough to 

be negligible. There is very limited tribal harvest of natural-origin fish within the John Day 

River subbasin; impacts from the recreational fishery are incidental to hatchery-origin fish 

harvest and are not selective. No phenotypic traits appear to be at risk as a result of this activity. 

The harvest rating is low risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated within the population; therefore, 

the hatchery rating is very low risk for all traits. 

Habitat: Altered flow profiles and increased temperatures have been in place for many 

generations and are ongoing; there is likely some selection on juvenile and adult migration 

timing. 

Adult migration timing: Low flows in the late summer and early fall in the John Day 

River likely expose adults that enter the river early to above normal mortality rates. 

Adult migration timing is highly heritable, but a negligible proportion of the population is 

likely subject to these effects. Thus, the impact of habitat changes on this trait is low 

risk. 

Juvenile migration timing: Late spring and early summer temperatures are elevated 

relative to historical conditions. There has likely been some effect on juvenile migration 

timing as temperatures can reach stressful levels in the John Day River mainstem in late 

spring and early summer in some years. Selection intensity is considered negligible and 

the heritability of this trait is moderate to low. The rating for this trait is low risk.

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-109

predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation is 

highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selective factor is low risk.

There is only one trait that has a moderate rating for one selective activity. Therefore, the overall 

selectivity rating for this population is low risk.

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Moderate Risk (Table 4) for the South Fork 

John Day River population. The rating for Goal A (allowing natural rates and levels of spatially 

mediated processes) was very low risk. Although the current spawner distribution mimics the 

intrinsic distribution, only three MaSAs exist within the population. Good continuity exists 

between spawning areas and gaps between areas have remained relatively unchanged. 

The rating for Goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) is moderate risk. As is the case 

for all John Day River steelhead populations there is uncertainty in ratings of metrics “genetic 

variation” and “proportion of spawners that are out-of-DPS strays.” We have limited genetics 

data for South Fork steelhead to determine if the current population variation is similar to 

historic conditions and to examine the degree of hatchery fish introgression. The metric for 

proportion of out-of-DPS strays rated as high risk. However, the analyses relied on composite 

data from four John Day River populations. Additional population-specific spawner composition 

data are needed to better inform the risk rating and to reduce the associated uncertainty. 

Table 4. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk 

rating. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a L (1) L (1) 

A.1.b VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.c VL (2) VL (2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 1.67) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 1.67)

B.1.a L (1) L (1) 

B.1.b L (1) L (1) 

B.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Low Risk (1) 

B.2.a(1) H (-1) 

B.2.a(2) L (1) 

B.2.a(3) VL (2) 

B.2.a(4) VL (2) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.3.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk 

(Mean = 0.5)

Moderate Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-110

Overall Viability Rating

The South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population does not currently meet the 

ICTRT criteria for viable status (Figure 7). However, the population does meet criteria to be 

rated as MAINTAINED. Overall abundance and productivity is rated at Moderate Risk. The 

10-year geometric mean abundance of natural-origin spawners is 259, which is only 52% of the 

minimum abundance threshold of 500. The 20-year geometric mean productivity (2.06 R/S; 

Table 6) exceeds the minimum required productivity of 1.56 R/S at the abundance threshold. 

Overall spatial structure and diversity is rated at Moderate Risk. Improvement in abundance 

will allow this population to achieve viable status. There is considerable uncertainty regarding 

the spawner composition data. Enhanced monitoring of the hatchery-origin/natural-origin ratios 

on the South Fork John Day River spawning grounds should be conducted to improve the 

hatchery fraction estimate and reduce the degree of uncertainty. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M 

M 

South Fork John 

Day River

HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

(>25%) HR HR HR HR 

Figure 7. South Fork John Day River summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the four 

viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; 

HR – High Risk; Shaded cells – does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-111

Data Summary – South Fork John Day River

Data type: Redd count expansion - Index area redd counts expanded to total population estimate 

by applying ratio of average redd densities (samples across all areas to samples from 

index reaches) from EMAP surveys. Assumed 2.1 fish per redd. 

Smolt-to-Adult Return rate (SAR): Mid-Columbia composite series (see Methods). 

Table 5. South Fork John Day River steelhead population abundance and productivity data used for curve 

fits and R/S analysis. Bold values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1979 214 1.00 214 819 3.83 1.94 1588 7.43

1980 451 1.00 451 1058 2.34 0.50 534 1.18

1981 467 1.00 467 1316 2.82 0.68 899 1.92

1982 824 1.00 824 1546 1.87 0.46 706 0.86

1983 821 1.00 821 1782 2.17 0.52 933 1.14

1984 687 1.00 687 1025 1.49 0.65 663 0.96

1985 1423 1.00 1423 290 0.20 0.46 133 0.09

1986 1069 1.00 1069 345 0.32 0.94 326 0.30

1987 1947 1.00 1947 399 0.20 2.18 868 0.45

1988 1958 1.00 1958 429 0.22 0.99 425 0.22

1989 239 1.00 239 417 1.74 0.96 401 1.67

1990 332 1.00 332 325 0.98 2.83 920 2.77

1991 331 1.00 331 154 0.46 2.33 359 1.08

1992 480 0.99 473 150 0.31 1.88 281 0.59

1993 372 0.99 367 138 0.37 1.18 163 0.44

1994 536 0.97 522 123 0.23 1.07 131 0.24

1995 180 0.94 168 217 1.21 1.23 266 1.48

1996 145 0.93 135 436 3.01 1.03 450 3.10

1997 182 0.95 173 676 3.71 0.76 516 2.84

1998 115 0.96 110 719 6.28 0.49 353 3.08

1999 105 0.98 103

2000 288 0.91 263

2001 576 0.91 525

2002 922 0.90 830

2003 761 0.89 679

2004 452 0.87 393

2005 197 0.87 172

Table 6. South Fork John Day River steelhead population geometric mean abundance and productivity 

estimates (values used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold 1987-1998 1979-1998 geomean

Point Est. 1.72 1.66 1.95 2.06 0.96 1.14 259

Std. Err. 0.30 0.33 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.24

count 10 9 10 9 12 20 10

R/S measures Lambda measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted

Table 7. South Fork John Day River steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter estimates. 

Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 0.99 0.25 n/a n/a 0.68 0.68 66.0 0.97 0.23 n/a n/a 0.90 0.45 63.9

Const. Rec 453 82 n/a n/a n/a n/a 53.0 445 66 n/a n/a n/a n/a 44.8

Bev-Holt 50 0 466 0 0.18 0.85 55.8 50 233 457 89 0.37 0.40 47.6

Hock-Stk 3.99 0.13 113.60 0.72 0.18 0.85 55.8 3.09 1.42 146 71 0.36 0.41 47.5

Ricker 2.34 0.68 0.00134 0.00035 0.26 0.80 57.7 2.37 0.60 0.00140 0.00030 0.47 0.38 52.1

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-112

Figure 8. South Fork John Day River steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points were 

used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Curent

Figure 9. South Fork John Day River steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points were used 

in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. Function labeled “Current” 

is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending limb at the geometric mean 

productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity estimate to the data series. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-113

 Upper Mainstem John Day River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population (Figure 1) is one of five 

populations in the John Day River MPG within the Mid-Columbia River DPS. All five 

populations in this MPG are summer run. 

Figure 1. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and 

minor (MiSA) spawning areas. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the Upper Mainstem John 

Day River population as “intermediate” in size and complexity (Table 1) based on historical 

habitat potential (ICTRT 2007). A steelhead population classified as intermediate has a 

minimum abundance threshold of 1,000 natural-origin spawners with sufficient intrinsic 

productivity (≥ 1.35 recruits per spawner at the minimum abundance threshold) to achieve a 5% 

or less risk (“low risk”) of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. In order for the Upper 

Mainstem population to achieve a 1% or less risk (“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, 

productivity would need to be at or greater than 1.64 recruits per spawner at the minimum 

abundance threshold. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-114

Table 1. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic 

potential analysis summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 2,511 

Stream lengths km (total) a 801 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 767 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 3.091 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 3.091 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 3.346 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 3.346 

Size / Complexity category Intermediate / “B” (dendritic structure) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 5 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 0 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where the mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1965-2005) total spawner abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production 

areas) has ranged from 197 in 1995 to 4,235 in 1988 (Figure 2). Abundance estimates are based 

on expanded redd counts. Index surveys of steelhead redds from the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW), John Day District, were used for the historical dataset. We used index 

surveys that showed relatively consistent visitation through years (Belshaw, Bear, Beech, East 

Fork Beech, Canyon, Middle Fork Canyon, McClellan, Riley, and Tinker creeks). The current 

spawning distribution was used for the miles of available habitat within each population’s range. 

The index redd densities were then multiplied by a correction factor to estimate the annual redd 

densities for the entire spawning distribution, based on the ratio of index redd densities to EMAP 

(Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program) redd densities for 2004-2005; the ratio 

was consistent for these years (0.36, 0.35). The estimated redd density for the entire spawning 

area (0.355 x index density) was multiplied by the total miles of spawning habitat currently 

utilized. Total annual redds were converted to fish by multiplying the total annual number of 

redds by the number of fish per redd. Fish per redd ratios were developed from four years of 

data of complete and repeated surveys (censuses) on Deer Creek in the Grande Ronde River 

basin of redds above a weir where there was a complete fish count; the calculated average fish 

per redd estimate was 2.1. 

The hatchery-origin/natural-origin composition of spawners was computed separately for the 

Lower Mainstem John Day River population and combined for all other populations in the MPG. 

Data used to represent the Upper Mainstem population included observations of positively 

identified fin-clipped spawners (1992-present) from spawning survey observations in the four 

populations above the Lower Mainstem, and observations from rotary screw trap and seine 

collections of adults (2000-present). Evidence from the Deschutes River indicates that hatchery 

straying was substantially lower before 1992; because the source of strays in the John Day River 

subbasin is the same as in the Deschutes River we assumed a similar trend. No data are available 

for earlier years so the hatchery fraction was set at zero. Age composition was derived from 

scale readings of creel sampled unmarked fish collected during the 1980s above Tumwater Falls. 

Recent year natural spawners include recruits from naturally spawning parents and a small 

fraction of strays from Snake and Columbia River hatchery programs. Spawners originating 

from naturally spawning parents have comprised an average of 93% since hatchery strays were 

documented in 1992. Since then, the percentage of natural spawners has ranged from 87%-99%. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-115

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spaw ners

Natural Origin Spaw ners

Figure 2. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer 

steelhead population spawner abundance (1960-2003).

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year 

(1994-2003) geometric mean abundance 

of natural-origin spawners was 524 (572 

total spawners). During the period 

1969-1998, recruits per spawner (R/S, 

in terms of spawner to spawner) for 

steelhead in the Upper Mainstem John 

Day River ranged from 0.19 in 1992 to 

5.43 in 1979. The annual R/S estimates 

were adjusted to reflect the average 

smolt-to-adult return rate (SAR). The 

20-year (1979-1998) geometric mean 

productivity was 2.14 R/S, adjusted for 

SAR and delimited at 75% (750 

spawners) of the abundance threshold. 

Table 2. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 524 (185-5169) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.93 (0.87-1.00) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (20-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 2.14 (1.52-2.76) 0.33 

Productivity (20-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a n/a 

Trend Statistics (1980-2005) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 0.95 (0.92-1.03) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 0.99 (0.77-1.27) 0.44 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 0.99 (0.77-1.28) 0.47 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number >75% of the population’s minimum 

abundance threshold. This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate.

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

The Upper Mainstem John Day 

River population is at Moderate 

Risk based on current abundance 

and productivity. The point estimate 

for abundance and productivity 

resides between the 5% and 25% risk 

curves (Figure 3). 

The average trend in abundance over 

the most recent 20 years has been 

below 1.0 based on both the trend in 

ln(natural-origin spawner 

abundance) and the population 

growth rate metric (λ) with no 

adjustment for relative hatchery-origin 

spawner effectiveness (Table 2). Like 

most Mid-Columbia DPS steelhead 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

current

5% risk

25% risk

Figure 3. Figure 3. Upper Mainstem John Day River 

steelhead population current abundance/productivity 

(A/P) compared to the DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE 

about the point estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A/P.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-116

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Beech

Laycock

Canyon (John Day)

Upper Middle Mainstem John Day

Upper John Day

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited (none)

populations, the estimated number of spawners in the Upper Mainstem John Day increased in the 

mid 1980s, and then dropped back down by the early 1990s. Annual returns since 1999 have 

generally been below the early 1980s levels, except for increased returns peaking in 2002. The 

estimated proportion of hatchery-origin spawners has been relatively constant over the period at 

7% (Table 3.5.5–2). The relative effectiveness of hatchery-origin spawners in contributing to 

natural production in this population is not known. Setting the value to 0.0, the opposite extreme 

from 1.0, does not substantially alter the estimated population growth rate given the relatively 

low proportion of hatchery-origin spawners recorded for this population. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified five major spawning areas (MaSAs) and no minor spawning areas 

(MiSAs) within the Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population (Figure 4). Most of 

the production area resides in the Upper John Day MaSA. Spawning is distributed broadly 

across the population including mainstem reaches in the Upper John Day River, Canyon Creek, 

and Beech Creek, as well as in numerous tributaries from the town of Dayville, OR, upstream to 

the headwaters. Spawners within the Upper John Day River are primarily natural-origin fish, 

although a small proportion of out-of-DPS hatchery fish, primarily from Snake River stocks, are 

present in the Upper Mainstem population. 

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Upper Mainstem John Day River population has five MaSAs (no MiSAs) which are 

distributed in a complex dendritic pattern. Based on the ODFW spawner distribution database 

all of the MaSAs are currently occupied and a total of 489 km are presently used for spawning 

(Figure 5). The Upper Mainstem John Day River population rates at very low risk because all 

five MaSAs are occupied in a dendritic configuration. 

Figure 4. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential 

habitat across major (MaSAs) and minor spawning areas (MiSAs).
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-117

Figure 5. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and 

spawning area occupancy designations.

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

All of the historical MaSAs are currently occupied (Figure 5). This population rates at very low 

risk for spatial extent and range, since greater than 90% of the historical MaSAs are occupied. 

There are nine spawning survey index sites in the Upper Mainstem John Day River population 

covering all five MaSAs. Recent survey results will be analyzed for future viability assessments. 

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There have been no increases or decreases in gaps between spawning areas relative to historic 

distribution. Spawning connectivity appears to be unchanged, thus the population rates at very 

low risk for this metric. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-118

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

There are no direct observations to assess loss in major life history strategies for the Upper 

Mainstem population; therefore we infer changes in life history from habitat information. 

Habitat conditions have been altered resulting in decreased flows and increased temperatures. 

The habitat changes limit juvenile movement patterns and rearing distribution during summer. 

The age-at-migration and ocean residence data are based on scale analyses from angler caught 

fish and represent a composite for John Day River populations. Smolt age-at-migration and 

ocean residence appear to be normal for A-run steelhead. There is no evidence for loss of major 

life history pathways. We have rated this metric as moderate risk because of the significant loss 

of summer rearing in the upper mainstem and tributaries. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

Mainstem Columbia River temperatures, as well as temperatures within the John Day River 

basin, have likely reduced the variation in both adult and juvenile migration. Warmer 

temperatures in the summer and autumn hinder or prevent adult movement upstream into the 

John Day River. Warmer temperatures in early summer have likely truncated the smolt 

migration timing so that fewer fish migrate at the tail end of the distribution. The reduction in 

these phenotypic traits results in a rating of low risk for the Upper Mainstem John Day River 

population. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

There are limited genetics data for the John Day River steelhead populations and only one 

sample from the Upper Mainstem population. We have no indications of past bottlenecks and 

the only major genetics concern is related to introgression from out-of-DPS hatchery fish. 

Overall the John Day River samples are not well differentiated. Samples were taken from a 

relatively small geographic area for only one year. We have rated the population as low risk. 

This rating is driven by balance between apparent similarity within and between populations and 

relative degree of differentiation. There is the need for better genetic assessment of this 

population to characterize genetic diversity and hatchery fish genetic introgression. Samples 

were collected in 2005 to provide better information for assessing genetic variation. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: Inadequate data exist to estimate the out-of-DPS hatchery fraction 

specifically for the Upper Mainstem population. Estimates we used in this assessment are based 

on data from a composite of the four populations (South Fork, Middle Fork, North Fork and 

Upper Mainstem) in the John Day River that are above the Lower Mainstem population. These 

estimates are based on observations from spawning surveys and kelt collections seined from the 

mainstem. Since 1992, the estimated hatchery fraction ranged from 0.01-0.13. The mean 

hatchery fraction was 0.067. Based on coded wire tags (CWTs) recovered primarily from angler 

caught fish, the majority of stray hatchery fish originate from Snake River hatcheries. Given that 

the hatchery fraction of out-of-DPS strays is estimated to be greater than 0.05 for two or more 

generations, the rating is high risk for this metric. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-119

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There have been four fish with CWTs 

recovered in the John Day River from out-of-MPG within-DPS origin. Three originated from 

the Umatilla Hatchery program and one from the Deschutes. It appears very few within-DPS 

hatchery fish stray into the John Day River, thus the rating is low risk for this metric. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: There are no steelhead hatchery 

programs operated within the John Day River basin, and this metric is rated as very low risk. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated 

within the John Day River basin, therefore this metric is rated as very low risk. 

The overall spawner composition rating is high risk due to the high proportion of out-of-DPS 

strays that spawn naturally in this population. 

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The initial distribution of the Upper Mainstem population encompassed four ecoregions of which 

only two were greater than 10% of the distribution (Figure 6). The John Day Clarno Uplands is 

the dominant ecoregion. There has been very little change in ecoregion distribution as the 

current distribution mimics the intrinsic potential (Table 3). The risk level is low risk only 

because two ecoregions have proportions greater than 10%. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-120

Table 3. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population proportion of current spawning 

areas across EPA level IV ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

John Day Clarno Highlands 7.0 9.4 

John Day Clarno Uplands 72.5 63.2 

Melange 18.3 24.7 

Mesic Forest Zone 2.2 2.7 

Figure 6. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA 

level IV ecoregions.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-121

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population crosses three dams on the lower mainstem Columbia River 

in its seaward and spawning migrations. The hydropower system and associated reservoirs 

appear to impose some selection on smolt and adult migration timing. All hydropower effects 

have persisted for multiple generations and are ongoing. 

Adult migration timing: These dams establish a thermal barrier in the reservoirs that 

delays and potentially induces some mortality of migrating adults. This barrier is 

diminished later in the migration season. Because the timing of the barrier varies from 

year to year and does not develop in some years, and the degree of differential survival is 

likely low and not well-understood, we rate the selection intensity as low. Heritability of 

this trait is high, thus the hydropower rating for this trait is moderate risk. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect slightly more than 2% of the total population. There may be a 

very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the Chinook salmon 

fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts are slight enough to 

be negligible. There is very limited tribal harvest of natural-origin fish within the John Day River 

subbasin; impacts from the recreational fishery are incidental to hatchery-origin fish harvest and 

are not selective. No phenotypic traits appear to be at risk as a result of this activity. The 

harvest rating is low risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: There are no steelhead hatchery programs operated within the population; therefore, 

the hatchery rating is very low risk for all traits. 

Habitat: Altered flow profiles and increased temperatures have been in place for many 

generations and are ongoing; there is likely some selection on juvenile and adult migration 

timing. 

Adult migration timing: Low flows in the late summer and early fall in the John Day 

River likely expose adults that enter the river early to above normal mortality rates. 

Adult migration timing is highly heritable, but a negligible proportion of the population is 

likely subject to these effects. Thus, the impact of habitat changes on this trait is low 

risk. 

Juvenile migration timing: Late spring and early summer temperatures are elevated 

relative to historical conditions. There has likely been some effect on juvenile migration 

timing as temperatures can reach stressful levels in the John Day River mainstem in late 

spring and early summer in some years. Selection intensity is considered negligible and 

the heritability of this trait is moderate to low. The rating for this trait is low risk.

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 

predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation is 

highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-122

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selective factor is low risk.

There is only one trait that has a moderate rating for one selective activity. Therefore, the overall 

selectivity rating for this population is low risk.

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Moderate Risk for the Upper Mainstem John 

Day River population (Table 4). The rating for Goal A (allowing natural rates and levels of 

spatially mediated processes) was very low risk since the current distribution is nearly identical 

to the historic distribution.

The rating for Goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) was moderate risk. This risk 

rating was a result of a moderate rating for changes in major life history strategies. Additional 

genetics information needs to be assessed to determine current genetic variation and to examine 

for the degree of introgression of hatchery fish. The population was rated as high risk for out-ofDPS hatchery strays based on a limited time series of composite John Day River population 

hatchery fish observation data. Better population-specific spawner composition data are needed 

to better determine the out-of-DPS hatchery fraction. If there is significant hatchery 

introgression which affects the genetic variation of this population through time, then the risk 

rating for Goal B will increase, and the overall risk rating for spatial structure/diversity will 

increase. 

Table 4. Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk rating. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric 

Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.b VL (2) VL (2) 

A.1.c VL (2) VL (2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 2) 

Very Low Risk 

(Mean = 2) 

B.1.a M (0) M (0) 

B.1.b L (1) L (1) 

B.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

B.2.a(1) H (-1) 

B.2.a(2) L (1) 

B.2.a(3) L (1) 

B.2.a(4) VL (2) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.3.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

Moderate Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-123

Overall Viability Rating

The Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population does not currently meet the 

ICTRT criteria for viable status (Figure 7). However, the population does meet criteria to be 

rated as MAINTAINED. Overall abundance and productivity is rated at Moderate Risk. The 

10-year geometric mean abundance of natural-origin spawners is 524, which is only 52% of the 

minimum abundance threshold of 1,000. The 20-year geometric mean productivity (2.14 R/S; 

Table 6) exceeds the minimum required productivity of 1.35 R/S at the abundance threshold and 

the lower end of the adjusted standard error is above the 25% risk level. Overall spatial structure 

and diversity is also rated at Moderate Risk due to loss in life history diversity and high risk for 

spawner composition. In order for this population to achieve a viable rating, an increase in 

abundance is required so that abundance/productivity risk is reduced to low risk. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

 (<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M M 

Upper Mainstem 

John Day River

HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

 (>25%) HR HR HR HR 

Figure 7. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the 

four viable salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – 

Maintained; HR – High Risk; Shaded cells - does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-124

Data Summary – Upper Mainstem John Day River

Data type: Redd count expansion - Index area redd counts expanded to total population estimate 

by applying ratio of average redd densities (samples across all areas to samples from 

index reaches) from EMAP surveys. Assumed 2.1 fish per redd. 

Smolt-to-Adult Return rate (SAR): Mid-Columbia composite series (see Methods). 

Table 5. Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population abundance and productivity data used for 

curve fits and R/S analysis. Bold values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1979 215 1.00 215 1168 5.43 1.94 2265 10.53

1980 1031 1.00 1031 1808 1.75 0.50 913 0.89

1981 701 1.00 701 2790 3.98 0.68 1905 2.72

1982 801 1.00 801 3470 4.33 0.46 1586 1.98

1983 964 1.00 964 3576 3.71 0.52 1873 1.94

1984 1150 1.00 1150 2419 2.10 0.65 1564 1.36

1985 2143 1.00 2143 1060 0.49 0.46 487 0.23

1986 3275 1.00 3275 1169 0.36 0.94 1102 0.34

1987 3520 1.00 3520 1315 0.37 2.18 2862 0.81

1988 4235 1.00 4235 1209 0.29 0.99 1198 0.28

1989 839 1.00 839 680 0.81 0.96 654 0.78

1990 1321 1.00 1321 545 0.41 2.83 1542 1.17

1991 853 1.00 853 281 0.33 2.33 655 0.77

1992 1979 0.99 1950 385 0.19 1.88 723 0.37

1993 535 0.99 528 503 0.94 1.18 595 1.11

1994 968 0.97 943 521 0.54 1.07 558 0.58

1995 197 0.94 185 460 2.33 1.23 564 2.86

1996 387 0.93 361 641 1.66 1.03 662 1.71

1997 359 0.95 341 931 2.59 0.76 711 1.98

1998 736 0.96 704 993 1.35 0.49 487 0.66

1999 333 0.98 326

2000 622 0.91 567

2001 619 0.91 564

2002 1494 0.90 1344

2003 828 0.89 738

2004 617 0.87 536

2005 375 0.87 326

Table 6. Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population geometric mean abundance and 

productivity estimates (values used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold 1987-1998 1979-1998 geomean

Point Est. 1.78 2.23 1.73 2.14 0.93 1.01 524

Std. Err. 0.28 0.23 0.26 0.33 0.13 0.19 0.15

count 10 7 10 7 12 20 10

R/S measures Lambda measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted

Table 7. Upper Mainstem John Day River steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter 

estimates. Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 1.07 0.24 n/a n/a 0.54 0.69 62.1 1.05 0.21 n/a n/a 0.76 0.24 57.1

Const. Rec 1000 160 n/a n/a n/a n/a 48.1 981 120 n/a n/a n/a n/a 37.2

Bev-Holt 9.20 12.17 1181 325 0.11 0.88 50.2 18.52 40.52 1063 228 0.27 0.27 39.8

Hock-Stk 3.56 1.80 291 155 0.11 0.88 50.3 4.58 0.56 215 0 0.26 0.32 39.7

Ricker 2.38 0.62 0.00061 0.00015 0.24 0.75 52.6 2.15 0.48 0.00055 0.00013 0.43 0.02 47.2

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-125

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Current

Figure 8. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold 

points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival.

Figure 9. Upper Mainstem John Day River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold 

points were used in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. Function 

labeled “Current” is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending limb at the 

geometric mean productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity estimate to the 

data series. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-126

Umatilla River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Umatilla River summer steelhead population (Figures 1, 2) is one of three populations in the 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG within the Mid-Columbia River DPS. All three populations 

in this MPG are summer run. 

Figure 1. Umatilla River summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor (MiSA) 

spawning areas. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-127

Figure 2. Umatilla River summer steelhead population boundary and core major (MaSA) and minor (MiSA) 

spawning areas. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the Umatilla River 

population as “large” in size and complexity (Table 1) based on historical habitat potential. A 

steelhead population classified as large has a mean minimum abundance threshold of 1,500 

natural-origin spawners with sufficient intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.26 recruits per spawner at the 

minimum abundance threshold) to achieve a 5% or less risk (“low risk”) of extinction over a 

100-year timeframe. In order for the Umatilla River population to achieve a 1% or less risk 

(“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, productivity would need to be at or greater than 

1.53 recruits per spawner at the minimum abundance threshold. The core production area for 

this population is the Umatilla River drainage (Figure 2). The population as defined by the 

ICTRT includes production from small, relatively isolated tributaries to the mainstem Columbia 

River entering downstream of the Umatilla River. Annual estimates of abundance for the 

downstream tributaries included as components of this population are not available. The 

Umatilla River drainage contains sufficient intrinsic potential habitat by itself to meet the 

definition of a large population. Given those considerations, the current abundance and 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-128

productivity metrics for the Umatilla River are used to characterize abundance and productivity 

of the population. 

Table 1. Umatilla River summer steelhead basin statistics and intrinsic potential analysis summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 10,457 

Stream lengths km (total) a 2,322 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 2,278 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 7.531 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 7.456 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 9.070 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 3.415 

Size / Complexity category Large / “B” (dendritic structure) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 13 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 3 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1967 to 2004) total abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production areas) 

has ranged from 771 in 1998 to 5,172 in 2002 (Figure 3). Spawner abundance estimates for 

natural and hatchery summer steelhead in the entire Umatilla River Basin were determined from 

complete counts of adult returns to Three Mile Falls Dam (TMFD) at river mile 3.7. These 

counts did not include removals or mortality at and above the dam in all years except brood years 

(BY) 1984-1987. Fish were enumerated using electronic counters (BY 1967-1983), trapping 

(BY 1988-2000), and a combination of trapping and video monitoring (BY 2001-present). For 

BYs 1984-1987 abundance estimates were made with mark-recapture estimates. Missing 

abundance data for BY 1971, 1972, and 1979 were reconstructed using the known mean brood 

age structure from BY 1991-1998 and all available counts of brood returns in years before and 

after the missing counts. Counts in BY 1976 and 1978 were also incomplete but not 

reconstructed. In these years, electronic counters only operated from 24 December – 31 May 

and 13 December – 9 March, respectively. Age structure was determined by reading about 100-

150 scales per year collected from adults returning in BY 1994-2004. Missing run year age 

structure data before BY 1994 were estimated as the BY 1994-2004 mean age structure. 

Several sets of missing data for removals and mortalities at and above TMFD were estimated 

from the best available data. Missing harvest removals were estimated from creel survey data 

collected from the non-tribal fishery from BY 1993-2004 and the tribal fishery from BY 1993-

2001. Harvest of hatchery fish from BY 1988-1992 was estimated as the mean percent harvest 

of the hatchery run passed above TMFD from the later time period (2.5% non-tribal and 6.4% 

tribal). All harvested fish were assumed to be natural-origin before BY 1988. For years when 

harvest of natural-origin fish was allowed in the non-tribal fishery (before BY 1993), harvest was 

estimated as mean percent catch of the natural-origin run passed above TMFD (6.8 %) (1993-

2004) corrected by the mean percent of catch released (26%). Tribal harvest for BYs 1967-1987 

of hatchery and natural-origin steelhead was estimated as their respective mean percent harvest 

of their runs passed above TMFD (6.7% of the combined natural and hatchery run passed above 

TMFD). Missing broodstock removals in BY 1981 and 1982 were estimated as one naturalorigin fish collected for brood per 750 smolts produced based on the ratio of brood collected and 

smolts released in the early 1980s. All 95 hatchery fish collected for brood in BY 1991 were 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-129

assumed to have coded wire tags (CWTs) and were included in the total removal of 124 hatchery 

fish at TMFD for CWT recovery. 

Recent year natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning parents, 

Umatilla River hatchery-origin fish and out-of-DPS spawners, primarily from the Snake River 

basin. Natural-origin fish have comprised an average of 73% of natural spawners since 

documentation of hatchery returns began in 1988. Since that time, the percentage of naturalorigin spawners has ranged from 41% to 96%.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-130

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spawners

Natural Origin Spawners

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total Spawners

Natural Origin Spawners

Figure 4. Umatilla River summer steelhead population 

current abundance/productivity (A/P) compared to the 

DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE about the point 

estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A/P.

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year 

(1995-2004) geometric mean 

abundance of natural-origin 

spawners was 1,472 (2,347 total 

spawners). During the period 1967-

2000, recruits per spawner (R/S, in 

terms of spawner to spawner) for 

steelhead in the Umatilla River 

ranged from 0.3 in 1978 to 4.98 in 

1998. The annual R/S estimates 

were adjusted to reflect the average 

smolt-to-adult return rate (SAR). 

The 20-year (1981-2000) geometric mean 

productivity was 1.50 R/S, adjusted for 

SAR and delimited at 75% (1,125 spawners) of the abundance threshold (Table 2). 

Table 2. Umatilla River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 1472 (592-3542) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.73 (0.41-1.00) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (20-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 1.50 (1.11-2.03) 0.15 

Productivity (20-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a n/a 

Trend Statistics (1980-2004) Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) 1.01 (0.98-1.13) 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 0.99 (0.83-1.17) 0.41 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 1.04 (0.86-1.25) 0.68 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number >75% of the population’s minimum 

abundance threshold. This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate.

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

The Umatilla River summer steelhead 

population is at Moderate Risk for 

abundance and productivity metrics. 

The productivity is at low risk because 

the point estimate is above the 5% risk 

level and the adjusted standard error is 

above the 25% risk level. Abundance is 

at moderate risk because the point 

estimate is slightly below the 5% risk 

level (Figure 4). 

The trend in annual spawner abundance 

has been slightly positive since 1983; 

the population growth rate metric with 

no adjustment for relative hatchery 

effectiveness is 0.99. Annual variations 

in the estimated annual numbers of 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Figure 3. Umatilla River summer steelhead population 

spawner abundance estimates (1967-2004).
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-131

steelhead spawners in the Umatilla River fluctuated considerably over the 1980-2005 period. The 

general timing of peaks and declines in annual spawning numbers is similar to many other MidColumbia DPS steelhead populations—peak in the mid-1980s, increasing returns beginning in 

2000 followed by an abrupt decline to early 1980s levels. The relative effectiveness of hatcheryorigin spawners in this basin is not known. Hatchery proportions on the spawning grounds have 

averaged 27% over the recent period. As a sensitivity analysis, we recalculated the recent 

average population growth rate after setting the assumed relative hatchery effectiveness value to 

0.0. The average population growth rate generated from the sensitivity model run was 1.04. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified 13 historic major spawning areas (MaSAs) and 3 minor spawning 

areas (MiSAs) within the Umatilla River summer steelhead population. In addition, two MaSAs 

(Alder Creek and Glade Creek) and one MiSA (Fourmile Canyon) are direct tributaries to the 

Columbia River on the Washington side and were included in the Umatilla River population. 

We do consider these areas in the assessment of spatial structure/diversity for the Umatilla River 

steelhead population (Figure 5). Current spawning distribution is somewhat limited relative to 

historic and is concentrated in Birch Creek, Iskulpa Creek, Meacham Creek, Upper Umatilla 

River, and the North and South Forks of the Umatilla River. There is documented recent year 

spawning in both Glade Creek and Alder Creek subbasins (Yakama Indian Nation Fisheries 

Program 2005); however, we are uncertain if the distribution of spawners and the frequency of 

use meet the occupancy criteria. 

Spawners within the Umatilla River population include natural-origin returns, hatchery-origin 

returns of Umatilla River origin broodstock, and hatchery strays primarily originating from the 

Snake River basin. Hatchery-origin fish comprise a significant proportion of the naturally 

spawning fish in most recent years. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-132

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Cottonw ood (Umatilla)

Fourmile Canyon

Alkali

East Birch

Wildhorse

Low er Umatilla

Low er Birch

West Birch

Middle Umatilla

Upper Umatilla

Alder

Glade

Low er Middle Umatilla

McKay

Meacham

Butter

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

MiSAs

MaSAs

Figure 5. Umatilla River summer steelhead distribution of intrinsic potential habitat across major (MaSAs) 

and minor spawning areas (MiSAs). White bars represent current temperature limited areas that could 

potentially have had historical temperature limitations. 

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a. Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Umatilla River population has 13 MaSAs and 3 MiSAs which are distributed in a complex 

dendritic pattern. Historically the major production areas included Butter Creek, Meacham 

Creek, McKay Creek, Iskulpa Creek, Birch Creek, and the middle and upper Umatilla River. 

Spawning distribution has been reduced significantly from the intrinsic historic distribution. 

Currently 8 of the 13 MaSAs are occupied. The Butter Creek, Lower Umatilla, Lower Middle 

Umatilla, and McKay MaSAs are unoccupied. One of the three MiSAs is currently occupied 

(Cottonwood Creek). Figure 6 shows both Alder and Glade MaSAs as unoccupied; however, 

recent information indicates that these MaSAs may be occupied. The map has not been updated 

because the actual spawner distribution has not been determined. Although there has been a 

significant reduction in spawner distribution, the Umatilla River population rates at low risk

because it has more than four occupied MaSAs in a dendritic configuration. We have rated this 

metric as low risk instead of very low risk because of the uncertainty in occupancy of the Alder 

and Glade MaSAs. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-133

A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

The current spawner distribution is reduced substantially from the intrinsic distribution. Based 

on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) spawner database and the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) information, 8 of 13 (61.5%) MaSAs are currently 

occupied and only 1 of 3 (33.3%) MiSAs is occupied (Figure 6). The spatial extent and range of 

spawning distribution has been reduced to an extent that this population rates as moderate risk

for this metric. There are 12 index area spawning survey sites in the Umatilla River population. 

Recent survey results will be analyzed for use in future viability assessments. 

Figure 6. Umatilla River summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and spawning area 

occupancy designations. 

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There has been a change in gaps and continuity as a result of the loss of spawning in the McKay 

Creek and Lower Middle Umatilla River drainages as well as very limited production in the 

lower portion of the Butter Creek MaSA. Although some spawning occurs in lower Butter 

Creek, habitat conditions are such that no significant sustained production occurs. Due to the 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-134

low level of production in Butter Creek it does not serve any connectivity role within or between 

populations. In addition, less than 75% of the intrinsic MaSAs are currently occupied, thus the 

rating is moderate risk for this metric. 

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

We have no observational data to allow any direct comparisons of historic and current life 

history strategies. Therefore, we have used EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) analyses 

and habitat conditions to infer loss of life history strategies. Flow and temperature changes in the 

Umatilla River basin have limited movement patterns for both juvenile and adult steelhead. 

Juvenile steelhead cannot move into some mainstem rearing reaches above McKay Creek for 

over-summer rearing due to high temperatures. Adults are unable to enter the Umatilla River in 

early fall in many years because of the lack of flow as well as high water temperatures. Large 

areas, such as Butter and McKay Creek drainages, no longer support production. Flow 

enhancement projects have improved conditions for adult fall migration and summer rearing, 

particularly below McKay Creek. Past habitat changes have undoubtedly reduced diversity in 

life history pathways. However, it does not appear that any major pathways have been lost, and 

improved fall flows have provided conditions allowing adult migration throughout the fall 

season. The Umatilla River summer steelhead population still exhibits a diverse age structure, 

including multiple ages at smolt migration, multiple years of ocean residence, and repeat 

spawning. The population rated at moderate risk because all pathways exist but there has been 

significant reduction in variability and changes in distribution. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

We have no data to assess loss or substantial change is phenotypic traits, therefore we infer based 

on habitat changes. The changes in flow patterns and temperature profile within the Umatilla 

River and the mainstem Columbia River have likely resulted in reduced variation in adult and 

juvenile migration patterns. Juveniles have a much narrower window to successfully migrate out 

of the Umatilla River in the spring because water temperatures increase earlier than historically. 

Even though flow enhancement has improved conditions for adult fall migration, the run-timing 

distribution is likely truncated from historic. Adults cannot enter the river in early fall in some 

years because of flow and temperature limitations. We have rated the Umatilla River population 

at moderate risk because two or more phenotypic traits have changed. 

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

The genetics data for Umatilla River summer steelhead indicate that there is significant withinpopulation variation between Umatilla River steelhead and other populations in the MPG 

(Touchet River and Walla Walla River). In addition, the within-population diversity shows no 

indication of impairment. The hatchery fish are similar to natural-origin fish as expected, since 

they are offspring of natural-origin fish. There are out-of-DPS spawners, primarily from Snake 

River stocks, spawning naturally in the Umatilla River basin. Given the degree of genetic 

variation, the Umatilla River population rated at low risk for this metric. Given that the genetics 

samples used in the analyses were collected in the mid-1980s prior to significant hatchery 

influence, the genetic analyses need to be updated with recent samples. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-135

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: A significant number of out-of-DPS spawners enter the Umatilla 

River. Estimates of out-of-DPS spawners are based on expanded CWT recoveries of hatchery 

fish at TMFD. From 1993-2004, out-of-DPS spawners have comprised from 1.8-9.7% (mean = 

4.8%) of the fish that arrived at TMFD. These strays are not selectively removed because they 

are not distinguishable from Umatilla Hatchery supplementation steelhead. Given the length of 

time of influence and the hatchery fraction, we have rated the Umatilla River population at 

moderate risk for out-of-DPS spawners. This risk rating assumes that strays were present at a 

similar rate for the past three generations and that the proportion observed at TMFD represents 

proportions on the spawning grounds. 

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There have been few, if any, out-of-MPG 

within-DPS spawners recovered in the Umatilla River basin, thus the rating is very low risk for 

this metric. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners from within the MPG: There are two out-of-population withinMPG hatchery programs which could provide stray fish to the Umatilla River: Lyons Ferry Fish 

Hatchery releases in the Walla Walla River and Touchet River hatchery fish. No strays from 

these two programs have been observed. The rating is very low risk for this metric. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: The Umatilla River population is supplemented 

annually with hatchery fish produced from natural-origin broodstock collected at TMFD. The 

supplementation program has been ongoing since the late 1980s. Since 1993, Umatilla Hatchery 

fish have comprised an average of 29.4% of the naturally spawning fish. We characterize this 

program as using “best management practices” based on the following: 

• Most of the broodstock collected annually are natural-origin fish. 

• Mating protocols provide for a high number of family groups annually. 

• There presently is no culling or grading of parr or smolts. 

• Hatchery smolts are released in localized areas of the middle and upper mainstem. 

• There does not appear to be any genetic differentiation between hatchery and naturalorigin fish. 

Given that best practices are used, the average hatchery fraction is 29%, and the program has 

been underway for three generations, the rating is moderate risk for within-population hatchery 

fish. 

The spawner composition rating is high risk due to the moderate risk ratings for both the out-ofDPS spawners and the within-population hatchery proportions. 

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution encompasses seven ecoregions, four of which account for at 

least 10% of the distribution (Figure 7, Table 3). There has been only one significant shift 

greater than 67% in the ecoregion distribution (Pleistocene Lake Basins). This population rates 

at low risk. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-136

Figure 7. Umatilla River steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level IV ecoregions. 

Table 3. Umatilla River steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas across EPA level IV 

ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area (nontemp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

Umatilla Plateau 32.4 27.0 

Pleistocene Lake Basins 25.0 6.2 

Yakima Folds 5.3 0.0 

Deep Loess Foothills 2.7 1.2 

Umatilla Dissected Uplands 15.3 19.3 

Maritime-influenced Zone 17.7 42.9 

Mesic Forest Zone 1.7 3.4 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-137

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population passes three dams on the lower mainstem Columbia River 

in its seaward and spawning migrations. The hydropower system and associated reservoirs 

appear to impose some selection on smolt and adult migration timing. All hydropower effects 

have persisted for multiple generations and are ongoing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Changes in flow and temperature patterns likely inhibit outmigration in late spring as temperatures rise and flow decreases, causing increased travel 

time, increased energy expenditure and greater physiological stresses. Given the number 

of dams that this population must cross, and likely increased mortality as the season 

progresses, overall selection intensity on the population is likely moderate. Heritability 

of this trait has not been assessed so we assume a moderate to low heritability. Therefore 

the impact of the hydrosystem on this trait is moderate. 

Adult migration timing: Umatilla River adult migrants are affected by thermal blocks that 

are larger in size and longer in duration relative to historic conditions in the Columbia 

River system. These result in delays, likely result in increased energy expenditure (due to 

increased temperatures) and may result in increased straying. Adult migration timing is 

highly heritable. The proportion of fish in the population affected is relatively unknown, 

although the effect likely results in low mortality. The effect is highly variable from year 

to year and in some years no thermal barriers develop. We rated the selection intensity as 

low. Thus, the impact of the hydrosystem on this trait is moderate. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect only slightly more than 2% of the total population. There may 

be a very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the Chinook 

salmon fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the impacts are slight 

enough to be negligible. There is very limited tribal harvest of natural-origin fish within the 

Umatilla River subbasin and impacts from the recreational fishery are incidental to hatchery fish 

harvest. No phenotypic traits appear to be at risk as a result of this activity. The harvest rating is 

low risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: Hatchery broodstock collection has the potential to disproportionately remove 

specific fish (e.g., of a certain size or timing) from the wild population. The Umatilla River 

summer steelhead hatchery program is operated to provide hatchery fish for harvest and to 

supplement natural production. Broodstock are collected at TMFD. Typically, 100 natural-origin 

and 20 hatchery-origin fish are collected for broodstock. Broodstock are collected 

representatively so that their run-timing, sex, and age of broodstock mimic that of the total run at 

TMFD. We are uncertain of the degree of substructure within the basin or if there are different 

characteristics between spawning aggregates in the basin. If life history characteristics differ 

between different aggregates, there is the possibility that collection of broodstock representing 

TMFD timing may be differentially impacting spawning aggregates. However, the broodstock 

removal does not appear to be selective at the population level and no phenotypic traits appear to 

be at risk as a result of this activity. The hatchery rating is low risk for all traits. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-138

Habitat: Altered flow profiles and increased temperatures, which have been in place for many 

generations and are ongoing, likely impose some selection on juvenile and adult migration 

timing. 

 Juvenile migration timing: Late spring and early summer temperatures are substantially 

elevated relative to historical conditions. There has likely been some impact on juvenile 

migration timing as temperatures reach stressful levels early in the summer, essentially 

truncating migration timing. Heritability of this trait is moderate to low and the selection 

intensity is assumed to be low, thus the habitat rating for this trait is low. 

Adult migration timing: Late summer and early fall flows are often low in the Umatilla 

River and likely expose adults that enter the river early to above normal mortality rates. 

Adult migration timing is highly heritable but a relatively low proportion of the 

population is likely subject to these effects, and we rated the selection intensity as 

moderate. Thus, the impact of habitat changes on this trait is moderate. 

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 

predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation is 

highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing. Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selective factor is low risk.

The adult migration timing trait has two moderate ratings and the juvenile migration timing trait 

has one moderate rating. Therefore, the overall selectivity rating for the Umatilla River 

steelhead population is moderate risk. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-139

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating is Moderate Risk (Table 4) for the Umatilla 

River summer steelhead population. The rating for Goal A (allowing natural rates and levels of 

spatially mediated processes) was moderate risk. There has been significant reduction in 

spawner distribution relative to intrinsic potential distribution. This reduction has caused 

significant increases in gaps between spawning areas as well as disrupted continuity. 

The rating for Goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) was moderate risk. Habitat 

changes have been significant in the Umatilla River basin resulting in changes to flow profiles 

and elevated temperatures. These changes have resulted in impacts to life history diversity and 

phenotypic trait variation. The out-of-DPS spawners in combination with local origin hatchery 

fish spawning naturally put the population at high risk for spawner composition. Hydrosystem 

effects and within-basin habitat changes have likely resulted in selective mortality of the adult 

run timing phenotypic trait, resulting in a moderate risk rating for the selectivity metric. 

Table 4. Umatilla River summer steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk rating summary. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a L (1) L (1) 

A.1.b M (0) M (0) 

A.1.c M (0) M (0) 

Moderate Risk 

(Mean = 0.33) 

Moderate Risk 

(Mean = 0.33)

B.1.a M (0) M (0) 

B.1.b M (0) M (0) 

B.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

B.2.a(1) M (0) 

B.2.a(2) VL (2) 

B.2.a(3) VL (2) 

B.2.a(4) M (0) 

High Risk 

(-1) High Risk (-1) 

B.3.a L (1) L (1) L (1) 

B.4.a M (0) M (0) M (0) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

Moderate Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-140

Overall Viability Rating 

The Umatilla River summer steelhead population does not meet viability criteria. However, the 

population does meet criteria to be rated as MAINTAINED (Figure 8). Overall abundance and 

productivity is rated at Moderate Risk. The 10-year geometric mean abundance of naturalorigin spawners is 1,472, which is 98.1% of the minimum abundance threshold of 1,500. The 

20-year geometric mean productivity is 1.50 R/S with the lower end of the adjusted standard 

error above the 25% risk level. This productivity exceeds the minimum intrinsic productivity 

criteria of 1.26 R/S, thus placing the productivity at low risk. Overall spatial structure and 

diversity is also rated at Moderate Risk. Improvement in many of the spatial structure/diversity 

metrics and a small increase in the average abundance will raise the population to viable status. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

(1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M M 

Umatilla River HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

(>25%) HR HR HR HR

Figure 8. Umatilla River summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the four viable 

salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR – 

High Risk; Shaded cells - does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).

 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-141

Data Summary – Umatilla River Summer Steelhead Population

Data type: Estimated number of annual spawners estimated based on annual counts at Three Mile 

Falls Dam in the lower Umatilla River. Natural-origin proportion estimated based on 

hatchery and natural-origin counts, adjusted for removals or mortalities above the dam. 

SAR: Mid-Columbia SAR index (incorporates the Deschutes, Umatilla, Snake, and Upper 

Columbia River steelhead series). 

Table 5. Umatilla River steelhead population abundance and productivity data used for curve fits and R/S 

analysis. Bold values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1981 1,115 1.00 1,115 2,635 2.36 0.68 1799 1.61

1982 609 1.00 609 2,640 4.33 0.46 1207 1.98

1983 974 1.00 974 2,525 2.59 0.52 1322 1.36

1984 1,998 1.00 1,998 1,943 0.97 0.65 1257 0.63

1985 2,732 1.00 2,732 1,559 0.57 0.46 716 0.26

1986 2,487 1.00 2,487 1,017 0.41 0.94 959 0.39

1987 2,911 1.00 2,911 1,144 0.39 2.18 2490 0.86

1988 2,201 0.93 2,050 1,573 0.71 0.99 1558 0.71

1989 2,179 0.84 1,841 1,105 0.51 0.96 1062 0.49

1990 1,301 0.96 1,247 873 0.67 2.83 2471 1.90

1991 700 0.85 592 593 0.85 2.33 1384 1.98

1992 2,118 0.90 1,915 1,380 0.65 1.88 2594 1.22

1993 1,572 0.74 1,165 713 0.45 1.18 842 0.54

1994 1,074 0.79 847 885 0.82 1.07 948 0.88

1995 1,298 0.60 783 1,154 0.89 1.23 1414 1.09

1996 1,811 0.66 1,194 2,975 1.64 1.03 3070 1.70

1997 2,215 0.41 914 2,210 1.00 0.76 1687 0.76

1998 1,529 0.50 771 3,836 2.51 0.49 1880 1.23

1999 1,595 0.64 1,020 1,071 0.67 0.52 554 0.35

2000 2,621 0.77 2,030 2,584 0.99 1.00 2584 0.99

2001 3,353 0.73 2,444

2002 5,172 0.68 3,542

2003 2,822 0.71 2,015

2004 3,109 0.64 2,003

Table 6. Umatilla River steelhead population geometric mean abundance and productivity estimates (values 

used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold 1989-2000 1981-2000 geomean

Point Est. 1.24 1.79 1.14 1.50 1.07 1.06 1472

Std. Err. 0.24 0.33 0.19 0.15 0.02 0.06 0.22

count 10 5 10 5 12 20 10

R/S measures Lambda measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted

Table 7. Umatilla River steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter estimates. Biologically 

unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey (included for comparison only - not used in the 

assessment of current abundance/productivity). 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 0.94 0.14 n/a n/a 0.27 0.60 44.5 0.89 0.12 n/a n/a 0.31 0.31 40.3

Const. Rec 1512 174 n/a n/a n/a n/a 34.8 1438 147 n/a n/a n/a n/a 30.2

Bev-Holt 22.07 116.06 1587 446 0.21 0.44 37.5 8.48 15.93 1625 425 0.20 -0.15 32.7

Hock-Stk 1.92 0.70 806 310 0.21 0.45 38.1 1.98 0.64 735 249 0.20 -0.18 32.8

Ricker 2.70 0.88 0.00060 0.00017 0.22 0.45 38.0 2.35 0.69 0.00055 0.00016 0.21 -0.14 33.4

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-142

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

Hockey Stick fit

Beverton-Holt fit

Random Walk fit

replacement

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

Hockey Stick fit

Beverton-Holt fit

Random Walk fit

replacement

Current

Figure 9. Umatilla River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points were used 

in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival.

Figure 10. Umatilla River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points were used in 

estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. Function labeled “Current” is 

a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending limb at the geometric mean productivity

at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity estimate to the data series. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-143

Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead Population 

The Walla Walla River summer steelhead population (Figure 1) is one of three populations in the 

Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers MPG within the Mid-Columbia River DPS. All three populations 

in this MPG are summer run. 

Figure 1. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population boundary and major (MaSA) and minor (MiSA) 

spawning areas. 

The Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT) classified the Walla Walla River 

population as “intermediate” in size and complexity based on historical habitat potential (Table 

1). A steelhead population classified as intermediate has a mean minimum abundance threshold 

of 1,000 natural-origin spawners with sufficient intrinsic productivity (≥ 1.35 recruits per 

spawner at the minimum abundance threshold) to achieve a 5% or less risk (“low risk”) of 

extinction over a 100-year timeframe. In order for the Walla Walla River population to achieve 

a 1% or less risk (“very low risk”) of extinction over 100 years, productivity would need to be at 

or greater than 1.64 recruits per spawner at the minimum abundance threshold. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-144

Table 1. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population basin statistics and intrinsic potential analysis 

summary. 

Drainage area (km2) 2,988 

Stream lengths km (total) a 1,147 

Stream lengths km (below natural barriers) a 1,111 

Branched stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 2.448 

Branched stream area km2 (weighted and temp. limited) b 0.774 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) 3.711 

Total stream area weighted by intrinsic potential (km2) temp limited b 0.907 

Size / Complexity category Intermediate / “B” (dendritic) 

Number of major spawning areas (MaSAs) 3 

Number of minor spawning areas (MiSAs) 2 

a. All stream segments ≥ 3.8m bankfull width were included. 

b. Temperature limited areas were assessed by subtracting area where mean weekly modeled water temperature was > 22o

C. 

Current Abundance and Productivity 

Current (1993 to 2003) total spawner abundance (number of adult spawners in natural production 

areas) has ranged from 421 in 1999 to 1,811 in 2002 (Figure 2). Abundance of natural-origin 

summer steelhead in the portion of the Walla Walla River basin above Nursery Bridge Dam 

(NBD; North Fork, South Fork, and Couse Creek) was determined from counts of adult returns 

to NBD at river mile 44. These counts did not include removals or mortality at and above the 

dam. Fish were enumerated using trap counts and mark-recapture methods from brood years 

(BY) 1993-2001, and video counts in BY 2002, 2003, and 2005. Mark-recapture methods were 

used to account for fish that jumped the dam. Mark-recapture methods were discontinued 

following dam modifications that are thought to prevent fish from jumping the dam (T. Bailey, 

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, personal communication). Almost all hatchery fish 

trapped at NBD were removed during BY 1993-1999. The BY 2003 count (547) was incomplete 

as the west side ladder was opened from February 21 through March 11 due to passage problems 

with the east side ladder. Fish passing through the west bank ladder were not counted. The 

number of uncounted fish in BY 2003 was estimated as the mean percent of the run that passed 

NBD from February 21-March 11 during BY 1993-2001 (12.3%). The percent of the run 

passing NBD during that time period ranged from 5.4 % to 18.7% during BY 1993-2001. 

Counts were not available for BY 2004 because video equipment was inoperable during most of 

the migration season. Missing abundance data for BY 2004 were reconstructed using mean 

brood age structure estimated from BY 1991-1998 data and all available counts of brood returns 

in years before and after the 2004 missing count. Age structure was determined by scale 

analyses from adults returning in 1993-1995. Missing run year age structure data after 1995 

were estimated as the 1993-1995 mean age structure. Origin (natural or hatchery) could not be 

determined from video monitoring (2002-2005) and was estimated as the 1993-2001 mean 

percent of natural (96.4%) and hatchery (3.6%) origin fish in the run to NBD. Spawner 

abundance for the entire Walla Walla River natural-origin summer steelhead population was 

estimated by expanding abundance of spawners above NBD by a factor of 1.503. The expansion 

estimate was developed from the ratio of current smolt capacity of the entire population divided 

by the current smolt capacity above NBD. The current smolt capacity estimates were developed 

based on Ecosystem-Diagnosis-Treatment (EDT) analyses of current conditions. Harvest 

removals were not factored into the estimate of spawning escapement above NBD. Tribal and 

non-tribal fishing pressure is thought to be minimal (T. Bailey, personal communication). 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-145

Recreational angling was prohibited from 1996-2002 and limited to retention of hatchery-origin 

fish after 2002. 

Recent natural spawners include returns originating from naturally spawning adults and from 

outside-DPS spawners that originate from Lyons Ferry Hatchery releases in the lower Walla 

Walla River. Natural-origin fish have comprised an average of 98% over the 11 years of 

available data. Throughout the period, the percentage of natural-origin fish has ranged from 

95.4% to 99.8%.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-146

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Brood Year

Abundance

Total spawners

Natural origin

spawners

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Abundance (10-yr geometric mean)

Productivity (geometric mean R/S)

Current Status

5% risk

25% risk

Abundance in recent years has been 

moderately variable. The 10-year 

(1996-2005) geometric mean 

abundance of natural-origin spawners 

was 650 (Table 3.3.2-2). During the 

period 1993-2000, recruits per 

spawner (R/S, in terms of spawner to 

spawner) for steelhead in the Walla 

Walla River ranged from 0.39 in 1993 

to 2.65 in 1998. The annual R/S 

estimates were adjusted to reflect the 

average smolt-to-adult return rate 

(SAR). The 8-year (1993-2000) 

geometric mean productivity was 1.34 

R/S, adjusted for SAR and delimited at 75% 

(750 spawners) of the abundance threshold 

(Table 2). 

Table 2. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity estimates. 

Abundance/Productivity Statistics Estimate (Range) 

Abundance: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 650 (270-1746) 

Proportion: natural-origin spawners (10-year geometric mean, range) 0.98 (0.95-1.00) 

Estimate (90% CI)b SE 

Intrinsic productivity (8-year R/S, SAR adjusted & delimited) a 1.34 (1.05-1.71) 0.12 

Productivity (8-year Beverton-Holt fit, SAR adjusted) n/a n/a 

Trend Statistics (1980-2005) c

 Estimate (95% CI) P>1.0 

ln(natural-origin spawner abundance) n/a 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 1.0 n/a 

Population growth rate (λ): Hatchery effectiveness = 0.0 n/a 

a. Delimited productivity excludes any recruit/spawner pair where the spawner number >75% of the population’s minimum 

abundance threshold. This approach attempts to remove density dependence effects that may influence the productivity estimate.

b. Lower end of the 90% CI on productivity is used in evaluating the impact of parameter uncertainty on risk. 

c. Insufficient data series to calculate 1980- 2005 trend metrics. 

The Walla Walla River summer 

steelhead population is at Moderate 

Risk based on current abundance and 

productivity. The point estimate falls 

between the 5% and 25% risk curves 

(Figure 3). The moderate risk rating 

should be viewed with caution given 

two considerations: 1) the time series 

is short, with only eight brood years, 

and there is considerable uncertainty 

if the data adequately represent the 

true value; and 2) there is 

considerable uncertainty associated 

with the amount of spawning and 

production that occurs within the 

Figure 2. Walla Walla River summer steelhead 

population spawner abundance estimates (1993-2005).

Figure 3. Walla Walla River summer steelhead 

population current abundance/productivity (A/P) 

compared to the DPS viability curve. Ellipse = 1 SE about 

the point estimate. Error bars = 90% CI for A/P.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-147

population outside of the area above Nursery Bridge Dam, particularly in Mill Creek. Better 

information relating abundance above Nursery Bridge Dam to the remaining area in the 

population is needed to reduce this data uncertainty. 

The natural-origin spawner abundance series for the Walla Walla steelhead population was 

initiated in 1993; therefore it was not possible to calculate the 1980-present trend metrics. The 

general pattern over the 1993 to 2005 period is similar to the patterns in returns over the same 

period for other Mid-Columbia DPS steelhead populations: declining annual abundance followed 

by a short increasing trend beginning in 1999 and then an abrupt decline after 2003. 

Spatial Structure and Diversity 

The ICTRT has identified three historic major spawning areas (MaSAs) and two minor spawning 

areas (MiSAs) within the Walla Walla River steelhead population (Figure 4). Two small 

watersheds, which are classified as MiSAs and which empty directly into the Columbia River 

below the Walla Walla River confluence, are included in the Walla Walla population boundaries 

(Juniper Canyon, OR and Switzler, WA). Current spawning distribution is substantially reduced 

relative to the historic intrinsic distribution. Current production is concentrated in the North and 

South Fork Walla Walla River, Couse Creek, Mill Creek and Dry Creek (WA). It should be 

noted that the map does not show Yellowhawk Creek, which runs between Mill Creek and 

Cottonwood Creek, and there is spawning in the lower reaches of Yellowhawk Creek. Spawners 

within the Walla Walla population are primarily natural-origin fish with a small proportion of 

hatchery strays which are Snake River-origin fish produced at Lyons Ferry Hatchery and 

released into the lower Walla Walla River. Hatchery fish were removed at NBD by trapping 

until 1999 when it was discontinued and replaced with video monitoring. Currently, hatchery 

fish pass above NBD to spawn naturally. 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Sw itzler

Dry (Walla Walla)

Pine (Walla Walla)

Mill (Walla Walla)

Walla Walla

Percentage of Area

non-temperature limited

temperature limited

MiSAs

MaSAs

Figure 4. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population distribution of intrinsic potential habitat across 

major and minor spawning areas. White bars represent current temperature limited areas that could 

potentially have had historical temperature limitations. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-148

Factors and Metrics 

A.1.a Number and spatial arrangement of spawning areas 

The Walla Walla River population has three MaSAs and two MiSAs distributed in a dendritic 

pattern. Historically, major production areas included Pine Creek, South Fork Walla Walla 

River, North Fork Walla Walla River, Mill Creek, Cottonwood Creek and Dry Creek (WA). 

Spawning distribution has been reduced significantly relative to historic distribution. Currently 

two of three of the MaSAs are occupied, including Walla Walla and Mill. Spawning and rearing 

do not occur in the Pine Creek MaSA. One of two MiSAs is occupied—Dry Creek. Even 

though there has been significant reduction in distribution, the population rated at low risk

because it has two MaSAs occupied in a dendritic pattern. 

Figure 5. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population current spawning distribution and spawning area 

occupancy designations. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-149

 A.l.b. Spatial extent or range of population 

Based on comparisons of the current spawner distribution databases from the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) with the intrinsic distribution, there has been substantial reduction in the range. 

Currently two of three MaSAs (67%) and one of two MiSAs (50%) are occupied (Figure 5). Due 

to the significant reduction, the population is rated at moderate risk because less than 75% (but 

greater than 50%) of the historical MaSAs are currently occupied. . There are limited spawning 

survey data to evaluate occupancy for this population. Additional spawning survey data needs to 

be collected to improve future viability assessments. 

A.1.c. Increase or decrease in gaps or continuities between spawning aggregates 

There have been significant changes in gaps and continuity as a result of the loss of spawning in 

the Pine Creek MaSA and the Switzler MiSA. The loss of occupancy in these areas has 

increased the distance between the Walla Walla population and other Mid-Columbia DPS 

steelhead populations. Due to these considerations, and because less than 75% of the historical 

MaSAs are occupied, the population is rated at moderate risk for this metric. 

B.1.a. Major life history strategies 

We have no data to allow any direct comparisons between historic and current life history 

strategies. Flow and temperature changes and barriers in the Walla Walla River basin have 

limited movement patterns of juvenile and adult steelhead during recent decades. Juvenile 

steelhead are unable to use many of the mainstem areas during the summer months due to high 

temperatures and low flows. Adults are unable, in some years, to enter the Walla Walla River in 

early fall. These types of changes have likely resulted in reduced life history diversity. 

However, it does not appear that any major life history pathways have been lost. The age 

structure and run-timing of adults is within the range observed for other summer steelhead 

populations. The population exhibits multiple ages of smolt out-migration and ocean residence 

time, as well as repeat spawners. The habitat changes have likely resulted in significant 

reduction in variability as well as a change in distribution of life history pathways, thus we have 

rated the population at moderate risk for this metric. 

B.1.b. Phenotypic variation 

There are no data to assess loss or substantial change in phenotypic traits, therefore we infer 

from habitat changes. The changes in flow patterns and temperature profile within the Walla 

Walla River, as well as the effects of adult passage barriers, have likely resulted in reduced adult 

and juvenile phenotypic traits. Juveniles have narrower windows for successful out-migration 

through the Walla Walla River as well as through the Columbia River. Adults cannot enter and 

migrate through the Walla Walla River during late summer and early fall in some years due to 

temperature limitations. The Walla Walla population rated at moderate risk because of likely 

change in mean and variability of two or more phenotypic traits. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-150

B.1.c. Genetic variation 

The genetic information for the Walla Walla population demonstrates levels of within and 

between-population differentiation that are healthy and do not indicate any substantial change 

from likely historical condition. In addition, there is little signal of introgression of outside-DPS 

hatchery fish which are known to be present in spawning areas. The population rated at low risk

for genetic variation. 

B.2.a. Spawner composition 

(1) Out-of-DPS spawners: There are out-of-DPS spawners present in the population that 

originate from Lyons Ferry hatchery releases into the mainstem Walla Walla River. Until 1999, 

wandering hatchery fish destined for the upper Walla Walla River basin were removed at 

Nursery Bridge Dam. Since that time, hatchery fish have passed upstream to spawn naturally. 

The removal of these out-of-basin hatchery-origin fish had reduced the hatchery proportion and 

the risk to the natural population. We estimated that about 2% of the natural spawners have been 

out-of-basin hatchery-origin fish for recent generations. With 2% out-of-DPS spawners for the 

past three generations the population is rated at moderate risk. It should be noted that two 

management actions may influence the future proportion of the out-of-DPS spawners. Annual 

smolt releases from Lyons Ferry Hatchery have been reduced substantially which will reduce the 

source of hatchery adults. On the other hand, hatchery fish are no longer removed at Nursery 

Bridge Dam which results in an increase in the proportion of hatchery spawners above this 

location. The overall effect of these two offsetting management changes is unknown. 

(2) Out-of-MPG spawners from within the DPS: There are no documented out-of-MPG withinDPS strays in this population, so the rating is very low risk for this metric. 

(3) Out-of-population spawners within the MPG: There are no documented out-of-population 

within-MPG strays, so the rating is very low risk for this metric. However, this risk rating may 

increase in the future due to potential within-population Touchet River hatchery strays. 

(4) Within-population hatchery spawners: There is no within population hatchery program, so 

the population is rated at very low risk for this metric. 

The overall spawner composition rating is moderate risk due to the moderate risk of out-of-DPS 

hatchery strays spawning naturally in this population. 

B.3.a. Distribution of population across habitat types 

The intrinsic potential distribution of the Walla Walla River population encompassed six 

ecoregions, of which four accounted for 10% or more of the ecoregion distribution (Figure 6, 

Table 3). Within these four ecoregions there have been no significant changes in the proportions 

from the historic intrinsic to the current distribution. The population is rated at very low risk

because all historical ecoregions are occupied, there are more than four currently occupied, and 

there have been no substantial changes in ecoregion occupancy (Table 3). 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-151

Figure 6. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population spawning distribution across EPA level IV 

ecoregions. 

Table 3. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population proportion of current spawning areas across EPA 

level IV ecoregions. 

Ecoregion % of historical spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

% of currently occupied spawning area 

(non-temp. limited) 

Deep Loess Foothills 19.0 30.4 

Loess Islands 8.0 0.9 

Maritime-Influenced Zone 11.1 18.8 

Mesic Forest Zone 4.6 6.6 

Pleistocene Lake Basins 45.9 25.8 

Umatilla Dissected Uplands 11.3 17.6 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-152

B.4.a. Selective change in natural processes or selective impacts 

Hydropower system: This population passes four dams on the lower mainstem Columbia River 

in its seaward and spawning migrations. The hydropower system and associated reservoirs 

appear to impose some selection on smolt and adult migration timing. All hydropower effects 

have persisted for multiple generations and are ongoing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Changes in flow and temperature patterns likely inhibit outmigration in late spring as temperatures rise and flow decreases, causing increased travel 

time, energy expenditure and physiological stress. Given the number of dams that this 

population must cross, and likely increased mortality as the season progresses, overall 

selection intensity on the population is likely moderate. Heritability of this trait has not 

been assessed so we assume a moderate to low heritability. Therefore the impact of the 

hydrosystem on this trait is moderate. 

Adult migration timing: Adult migrants are affected by thermal blocks that are larger in 

size and longer in duration relative to historic conditions in the Columbia River system. 

These result in delays, likely result in increased energy expenditure (due to increased 

temperatures) and may result in increased straying. Adult migration timing is highly 

heritable. The proportion of fish in the population affected is relatively unknown, 

although the effect likely results in low mortality. The effect is highly variable from year 

to year and in some years no thermal barriers develop. We rated the selection intensity as 

low. Thus, the impact of the hydrosystem on this trait is moderate. 

Harvest: Harvest has the potential to affect migration timing, maturation timing and size. 

However, recent harvest rates for A-run steelhead in the Columbia River mainstem are generally 

less than 10% annually. Although some harvest may be size-selective for larger fish, the 

selective mortality would affect slightly greater than 2% of the largest fish in the population. 

There may be a very slight advantage for earlier returning fish as a result of the timing of the 

Chinook salmon fishery, and while heritability of adult migration timing is high, the selection 

intensity is low enough to be negligible. There is very limited tribal harvest of natural-origin fish 

within the Walla Walla River subbasin and impacts from the recreational fishery are incidental to 

hatchery fish harvest No phenotypic traits appear to be at risk as a result of this activity. The 

harvest rating is low risk for all traits. 

Hatcheries: No natural-origin adults are collected for broodstock within the population; 

therefore, the hatchery rating is low risk for all traits. 

Habitat: Altered flow profiles and increased temperatures, which have been in place for many 

generations and are ongoing, likely impose some selection on juvenile and adult migration 

timing. 

Juvenile migration timing: Late spring and early summer temperatures are elevated 

relative to historical conditions. There has likely been some effect on juvenile migration 

timing as temperatures reach stressful levels early in the summer. Juvenile migration 

timing has likely been truncated; however we are uncertain of the degree of change. 

Heritability of this trait is moderate to low, and the selection intensity is assumed to be 

low, therefore the impact of habitat changes on this trait is low.
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-153

Adult migration timing: Late summer and early fall flows are often low in the Walla 

Walla River and likely expose adults that enter the river early to above normal mortality 

rates. Adult migration timing is highly heritable but a relatively low proportion of the 

population is likely subject to these effects, and we rated the selection intensity as 

moderate. Thus, the impact of habitat changes on this trait is moderate. 

Other: A population of Caspian terns in the estuary has been artificially enhanced by a 

combination of increased habitat (created by dredge spoils) and artificially increased food 

availability (large-scale releases of hatchery smolts). These terns appear to exert a size-selective 

predation pressure that primarily impacts the large steelhead smolts. The rate of predation is 

highest during tern nesting season in May. This pressure may affect smolt migration timing. 

Juvenile migration timing. Steelhead smolts pass through the estuary from April to June. 

The relatively high predation (10%) on smolts in May could select for earlier and later 

out-migrants. However, heritability of this trait has not been assessed, so we assume a 

moderate to low heritability. Because this predation occurs at the peak of migration, the 

impact of this selective factor is low risk.

The adult migration timing trait has two moderate ratings and the juvenile migration timing trait 

has one moderate rating. Therefore, the overall selectivity rating for the Walla Walla River 

steelhead population is moderate risk. 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-154

Spatial Structure and Diversity Summary 

The integrated spatial structure/diversity rating for the Walla Walla River summer steelhead 

population is Moderate Risk (Table 4). The rating for Goal A (allowing natural rates and levels 

of spatially mediated processes) was moderate risk. There has been significant reduction in 

spawner distribution which has resulted in increased gaps and loss of continuity within the 

population and between the Walla Walla population and other Mid-Columbia DPS steelhead 

populations. 

The rating for Goal B (maintaining natural levels of variation) was moderate risk. Water 

temperature and hydrograph changes as well as barriers have likely influenced life history 

diversity and phenotypic expression. Out-of-DPS spawners have put the population in the 

moderate risk category for the spawner composition metric. Hydrosystem effects and withinbasin habitat changes have likely resulted in selective mortality of the adult run timing 

phenotypic trait, resulting in a moderate risk rating for the selectivity metric. 

Table 4. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population spatial structure and diversity risk rating. 

Risk Assessment Scores Metric Metric Factor Mechanism Goal Population 

A.1.a L (1) L (1) 

A.1.b M (0) M (0) 

A.1.c M (0) M (0) 

Moderate Risk 

(Mean = 0.33) 

Moderate Risk 

(Mean = 0.33)

B.1.a M (0) M (0) 

B.1.b M (0) M (0) 

B.1.c L (1) L (1) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

B.2.a(1) M (0) 

B.2.a(2) VL (2) 

B.2.a(3) VL (2)) 

B.2.a(4) VL (2) 

Moderate Risk 

(0) Moderate Risk (0) 

B.3.a VL (2) VL (2) VL (2) 

B.4.a M (0) M (0) M (0) 

Moderate Risk (0) 

Moderate Risk 
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-155

Overall Viability Rating 

The Walla Walla River summer steelhead population does not meet viability criteria. However, 

the population does meet ICTRT criteria to be rated as MAINTAINED (Figure 7). Overall 

abundance and productivity is rated at Moderate Risk. The 10-year geometric mean abundance 

of natural-origin spawners is 650, which is 65% of the minimum abundance threshold of 1,000. 

The 8-year geometric mean productivity (1.34 R/S; Table 6) is nearly at the 1.35 R/S minimum 

required at the abundance threshold. However, there is considerable uncertainty due to the short 

time series. Analysis of additional brood years will be critical to demonstrating sustained 

recruits per spawner and abundance values above the low risk criteria level. Overall spatial 

structure and diversity is also rated at Moderate Risk. Significant improvements to spatial 

structure and diversity are needed to improve the risk level. 

Spatial Structure/Diversity Risk 

 Very Low Low Moderate High 

Very Low 

(<1%) HV HV V M 

Low 

 (1-5%) V V V M 

Moderate 

(6 – 25%) M M 

M 

Walla Walla 

River 

HR 

Abundance/ 

Productivity 

Risk 

High 

 (>25%) HR HR HR HR 

Figure 7. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population risk ratings integrated across the four viable 

salmonid population (VSP) metrics. Viability Key: HV – Highly Viable; V – Viable; M – Maintained; HR – 

High Risk; Shaded cells – does not meet viability criteria (darkest cells are at greatest risk).
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-156

Data Summary – Walla Walla River Summer Steelhead Population

Data type: Dataset reconstructed from dam counts 

SAR: Averaged Deschutes, Umatilla, Snake, and Upper Columbia River steelhead series 

Productivity: Only 8 recruit/spawner pairs for this population exist; therefore results must be 

interpreted carefully. 

Table 5. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population abundance and productivity data used for curve 

fits and R/S analysis. Bold values were used in estimating the current productivity (Table 6). 

Brood Year Spawners %Wild Natural Run Nat. Rtns R/S SAR Adj. 

Factor Adj. Rtns Adj. R/S

1993 1228 99.8% 1,225 474 0.39 1.18 561 0.46

1994 806 99.8% 804 525 0.65 1.07 562 0.70

1995 654 98.8% 646 497 0.76 1.23 609 0.93

1996 549 98.0% 538 753 1.37 1.03 777 1.42

1997 447 98.2% 439 1128 2.52 0.76 861 1.93

1998 573 99.1% 568 1517 2.65 0.49 744 1.30

1999 421 99.5% 419 1082 2.57 0.52 560 1.33

2000 792 97.5% 772 618 0.78 1.00 618 0.78

2001 1172 95.4% 1,118

2002 1811 96.4% 1,746

2003 938 96.5% 905

2004

2005 281 96.1% 270

Table 6. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population geometric mean abundance and productivity 

estimates (values used for current productivity and abundance are shown in boxes). 

Abundance

Nat. origin

delimited median 75% threshold median 75% threshold 1993-2001 1980-1999 geomean

Point Est. 2.20 1.78 1.47 1.34 1.14 n/a 650

Std. Err. 0.16 0.25 0.09 0.12 0.01 n/a 0.19

count 4 5 4 5 9 n/a 9

R/S measures Lambda measures

Not adjusted SAR adjusted Not adjusted

Table 7. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population stock-recruitment curve fit parameter estimates. 

Biologically unrealistic or highly uncertain values are highlighted in grey. 

SR Model a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc a SE b SE adj. var auto AICc

Rand-Walk 1.17 0.29 n/a n/a 0.29 0.62 23.2 1.01 0.16 n/a n/a 0.12 0.61 15.8

Const. Rec 756 109 n/a n/a n/a n/a 14.8 653 37 n/a n/a n/a n/a -0.4

Bev-Holt 50.00 104.52 773 122 0.10 0.65 20.6 50.00 81.92 667 45 0.02 0.52 5.6

Hock-Stk 1.17 0.17 19583 0 0.29 0.62 28.8 1.47 0.08 447 0 0.02 0.56 4.6

Ricker 6.54 2.15 0.00252 0.00045 0.08 0.38 16.1 3.17 0.49 0.00167 0.00021 0.02 0.22 3.9

Not adjusted for SAR Adjusted for SAR
Appendix B 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

B-157

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Total Parent Spawners

Natural Returns (Spawners)

Ricker fit

HS fit

BH fit

RW fit

replacement

Current

Figure 8. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points were 

used in estimating the current productivity. Data were not adjusted for marine survival.

Figure 9. Walla Walla River summer steelhead population stock recruitment curves. Bold points were 

used in estimating the current productivity. Data were adjusted for marine survival. Function labeled 

“current” is a Hockey Stick function derived by fixing the slope of the ascending limb at the geometric mean 

productivity at low to moderate abundance (Table 2) and fitting a capacity estimate to the data series.
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-1

APPENDIX C 

Summary of habitat projects completed within Oregon’s 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead populations 

on private and public lands from 1995-2005 

 

Data provided by 

OWEB, USFS, BLM and Watershed Councils
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-2

Summary of habitat projects completed within Oregon’s Mid-Columbia River steelhead 

populations on private and public lands from 1995-2005 (data provided by OWEB and 

USFS). 

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

Fifteenmile Creek Population 

20030865 Fifteenmile Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, bank 

stabilization 

4 structures, 

0.13 m

2003 Wasco SWCD $112,355.00

20030866 Mosier, Chenowith Upland 6,000 ac 2003 Wasco SWCD $95,518.00

20030867 Upland ? 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$1,297.00

20030868 Upland 23 ac 2004 Wasco SWCD $5,460.00

20030869 Lucky Canyon Upland 4 ac 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$3,906.00

20020839 Fifteenmile Cr, trib of Weather stations ? 2002 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$46,194.00

20030871 Threemile Cr Upland 6 ac 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$6,199.00

20030872 Brown's Cr Upland 12 ac 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$1,263.00

20030873 Lucky Canyon Upland erosion control, planted 1 ac 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$542.00

20030874 Brown's Cr Upland erosion control 80 ac 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$6,522.00

20030875 Chenowith Cr Upland 7 ac 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$1,969.00

20030876 Threemile Cr Upland erosion control and planting 2 ac erosion, 8 

ac planted

2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$1,371.00

20030877 Fifteenmile Cr Riparian fencing 0.59 miles 2001 ODFW $10,795.00

20030878 Fifteenmile Cr Riparian fencing 0.5 miles 2001 ODFW $9,000.00

20030879 Fifteenmile Cr Riparian fencing 0.5 miles 2003 ODFW $11,000.00

20030880 Eightmile Cr Riparian fencing 2.5 miles 2001 ODFW $43,900.00

20030870 Douglas Hollow Riparian fencing, upland off-channel 

watering 

0.25 M, 2 off 

sites

2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$9,776.00

20020838 Dry Cr Off-channel livestock watering, 

upland erosion control 

5 sites 2002 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$12,729.00

990469 Fifteenmile Cr Off-channel livestock watering 5 sites 1999 ODFW $12,000.00

20030881 Fivemile Cr Riparian fencing, off-channel site 0.63 M, 2 sites 2001 ODFW $12,775.00

1281 Fifteenmile Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

deflectors, bank stabilization; riparian 

fencing; upland vegetation 

management 

4.5 miles 1996 ODFW $23,500.00

990734 Mosier Cr, trib of Peak flow passage improvements, 

surface drainage improvements, road 

vacated; fish passage improvements: 

culvert removed and not replaced 

1 structure, 

5 ditches, 

60 stations, 

10 stations, 

2 culverts

1999 Longview Fibre 

Co. 

$28,429.00

20020842 Dry Cr & Mosier Cr Irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

30 ac 2001 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$11,997.00

1282 Eightmile Cr Instream large wood placement, 

deflectors, bank stabilization, boulder 

placement; riparian fencing; offchannel livestock watering 

3.5 miles 1997 ODFW $39,000.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-3

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20020841 Rock Cr Irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

? 2002 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$1,020.00

20020835 Mosier Cr Irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

20 ac 2002 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$1,281.00

20001121 Rock Cr Peak flow passage improvements 2 structures 2000 SDS Lumber 

Co. 

$0.00

990467 Fifteenmile Cr Off-channel livestock watering ? 1999 ODFW $4,000.00

981112 Mosier Cr Surface drainage improvements 75 stations 1998 Longview Fibre 

Co. 

$15,072.00

981108 Mosier Cr Surface drainage improvements 8 culverts, road 1998 Longview Fibre 

Co. 

$16,229.00

991044 Fifteenmile Cr Instream water rights 

transfers/leases 

1998 Oregon Water 

Trust 

$23,958.00

990472 West Fork Mosier Cr Peak flow passage improvements, 

road vacated 

1 structure 

removed

1999 Longview Fibre 

Co. 

$26,942.00

20010913 West Fork Mosier Cr Peak flow passage improvements, 

surface drainage improvements, road 

relocated, road reconstruction 

1 structure, 

2 cross-drain, 

9 culverts

2001 Longview Fibre 

Co. 

$46,114.00

20000725 West Fork Mosier Cr Peak flow passage improvements, 

surface drainage improvements 

140 2000 Longview Fibre 

Co. 

$62,497.00

990468 Eightmile Cr Off-channel livestock watering 1 off-channel 

site 

1999 ODFW $3,500.00

20030882 Fivemile Cr Riparian fencing, off-channel 1.52 m fence, 

2 sites

2002 ODFW $45,582.00

20040791 Eightmile Cr Riparian fencing 1.96 m 2004 ODFW $11,289.00

20040790 Fivemile Cr Riparian fencing 1.75 m 2004 ODFW $9,715.00

20040789 Eightmile Cr Riparian fencing 1 m 2004 ODFW $8,226.00

20040788 Fifteenmile Cr Riparian, off-channel 1.5 m, 1 site 2004 ODFW $21,034.00

20040754 Fifteen Mile Cr Upland no-till ag 3,501 ac 2005 Wasco SWCD $284,928.00

20050680 Mill Cr Upland irrigation improvements 9 ac 2005 Wasco SWCD $14,351.00

20050678 Fifteenmile Cr Guzzlers 2 2005 Wasco SWCD $9,517.00

20050677 Mill Cr Upland irrigation improvement 5 ac 2005 Wasco SWCD $1,814.00

20030888 Dry Cr Riparian fencing, off-channel 

watering site 

0.56 m fence, 

1 sites

2003 ODFW $11,350.00

20030891 Fivemile Cr Riparian fencing 0.25 m 2003 ODFW $6,890.00

20030887 Fifteenmile Cr Riparian fence, off-channel 1.38 m, 3 sites 2003 ODFW $16,249.00

20030886 Dry Cr Riparian fencing, off-channel 2.5 m, 8 sites 2002 ODFW $72,400.00

20030885 Fivemile Cr Riparian fencing 0.5 m 2001 ODFW $8,000.00

20030884 Fivemile Cr Riparian fencing 0.25 m 2001 ODFW $4,400.00

20030883 Eighmile Cr Rail 

Hollow 

Riparian fencing 1.26 m 2002 ODFW $22,500.00

20030889 Fifteenmile Cr Riparian fencing 1.4 m 2003 ODFW $16,600.00

20030890 Eightmile Cr Riparian fencing 1.5 m 2003 ODFW $22,200.00

Fifteenmile Cr Underburn 585 ac 1995 USFS $58,500.00

Fifteenmile Cr Instream and floodplain LWD 

placement 

1 RM 1995 USFS $27,000.00

Eightmile Cr Underburn 834 ac 1997 USFS $83,400.00

MF Fivemile Cr Instream and floodplain LWD 

placement 

0.5 RM 1997 USFS $14,000.00

Fifteenmile Cr Floodplain LWD placement 10 ac 1998 USFS $14,500.00

MF Fivemile Cr Replaced round culvert with bridge 1 site 1999 USFS $150,000.00

SF Fivemile Cr Replaced round culvert with 

bottomless pipe arch 

1 site 1999 USFS $85,000.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-4

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

Ramsey Cr Instream and floodplain LWD 

placement 

3 RM 2000-2002 USFS $269,745.00

Eightmile Cr Round pipe culvert replacements 

with bottomless arch culverts 

4 2002 USFS $260,428.00

Fifteenmile Cr Instream and floodplain LWD 

placement 

0.25 RM 2003 USFS $21,000.00

Ramsey Cr Underburn 815 ac 2003 USFS $95,000.00

Ramsey Cr Riparian and in-stream restoration 2 mi 2000 

USFS 

Mt. Hood NF $30,700

Deschutes River Eastside Population

20050687 Upland irrigation improvement ? 2005 Jefferson SWCD $5,668.00

990909 Fulton Canyon & 

Gordon Canyon 

Erosion control: terraces & WASCOB 

systems 

78 ac; 

15 w/s basins

1999 Sherman SWCD $21,283.00

20040725 Deschutes, trib of WASCOB 600 ac 2004 Sherman SWCD $3,242.00

20030849 Upland 1,080 ac 2003 Sherman SWCD $6,656.00

20030926 Upland, invasive plants ? 2003 Sherman County 

Weed District 

$14,756.00

990938 Warm Springs R & 

Skookum Cr 

Riparian fencing 9.5 m 1999 Deschutes 

Resources 

Conservancy 

$153,000.00

20020526 WASCOBs, Terraces 500 ac 2002 Sherman SWCD $55,603.00

20040753 Fifteen Mile Cr No-till; off-channel watering; 

WASCOB 

4,173 ac; 5 off; 

19 WACOBs

2004 Wasco SWCD $292,855.00

20010914 Neal Cr & Mosier Cr Peak flow passage improvements, 

surface drainage improvements, road 

relocated, road reconstruction 

2 cross-drains, 

18 culverts, 60 

rocking, 3 

relocation, 220 

other 

2001 Longview Fibre 

Co. 

$47,790.00

20020577 East Fork Neal Cr & 

Mosier Cr 

Surface drainage improvements, 

road reconstruction 

? 2002 Longview Fibre 

Co. 

$24,459.00

20020833 Beaver management ? 1999 Confederated 

Tribes of Warm 

Springs 

Reservation 

$21,686.00

20050777 Rock Cr Road, upland 8 cross-drains, 

1 m road 

seeded, 

3 structures

2003 Umatilla SWCD $84,248.00

20050613 Pine Cr Upland veg. management 11 ac 2004 Umatilla SWCD $6,961.00

990910 Gerking Canyon Erosion control: terraces & WASCOB 

systems 

1,700 ac 1999 Sherman SWCD $56,852.00

990466 Taylor Lake Instream air diffuser 1 1999 ODFW $31,500.00

20030923 Macks Canyon WASCOB, off-channel watering, 468 ac, 2 off 2003 Sherman SWCD $34,664.00

20020834 Bakeoven Cr Off-channel livestock watering, other 

grazing management, upland erosion 

control 

33 off, 15,527 ft 

cross fence, 

1,048 ac, 77 ac 

plant, 804 ac 

no till,14 

WASCOB, 

2002 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$307,816.00

20040726 Macks Canyon, Area 

of 

Upland terrace, off-channel watering 2,120 ft, 1 site 2004 Sherman SWCD $3,245.00

545 Willow Cr & Higgins 

Cr 

Bank stabilization ? 1995 Ochoco Lumber 

Company 

$3,500.00

20040724 Elder Cr, Area of Upland fence 3,749 ft 2004 Sherman SWCD $4,024.00

20030919 Mud Springs (Trout 

C. trib) 

Up. Irrigation improvement ? 2003 Jefferson 

County SWCD 

$13,165.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-5

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20001189 Trout Cr Boulder placement; grass seeding; 

fish passage improvements: 3 pushup dams removed and replaced with 

infiltration galleries 

3 dams; 

unknown 

boulders, 

stabilization

1999 Jefferson 

County SWCD 

$98,802.00

20050690 Deschutes R Upland irrigation improvement 20 ac 2005 Jefferson SWCD $26,933.00

20040687 Willow Cr Up. WASCOB, planting 3 ac, 4.5 ac 

plant

2004 Jefferson SWCD $13,416.00

20030922 Macks Canyon WASCOB, off-channel 46 ac, 1 off site 2003 Sherman SWCD $8,673.00

1201 Willow Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

weirs, bank stabilization; riparian tree 

planting, riparian fencing; peak flow 

passage improvements 

6 weirs, 14.5 ac 

treated/planted, 

1 mile fence, 20 

trees anchored

1997 Central Oregon 

Small 

Woodlands 

Association 

$25,700.00

20030924 Buck Hollow Cr Upland erosion control 30 ac 2003 Sherman SWCD $2,364.00

20030768 Foley Cr, (Trout C. 

trib) 

Rip. fence, off channel watering site 5 m, 2 sites 2003 Jefferson 

County SWCD 

$56,880.00

20030769 Willow Cr Upland irrigation improvements ? 2003 Jefferson 

County SWCD 

$25,079.00

20030770 Frog Springs Upland irrigation improvements ? 2003 Jefferson 

County SWCD 

$7,067.00

20050685 Willow Cr Riparian planting 2.35 m 2005 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$5,162.00

20030928 Buck Hollow Cr Upland WASCOB, fenced, treated, 

erosion 

300 ac fenced, 

16 WASCOB, 

565 ac treated, 

245 ac erosion, 

4 off-channel, 

2003 Wasco SWCD $251,285.00

997 Trout Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

weirs, deflectors, bank stabilization, 

boulder placement; riparian fencing 

40 boulders, 

20 deflectors, 

5 weirs, 

70 miles fence

1997 ODFW $200,000.00

998 Trout Cr Fish passage improvements: 1 

gravel push-up dam replaced with 

concrete diversion and fish ladder 

1 push-up dam, 

1 ladder

1997 ODFW $67,000.00

20050780 Bakeoven Cr, Buck 

Hollow Cr 

Upland fencing 163,891 ft 2004 Wasco SWCD $138,517.00

990905 Willow Cr Riparian fencing 1.5 m 1999 Willow Creek 

Watershed 

Council, Jeff 

County SWCD 

$19,150.00

20001129 Tenmile Cr (Trout C. 

trib) 

Upland pasture fencing 989 ac treated, 

1 off-channel 

site

2000 Trout Creek 

Watershed 

Council 

$57,521.00

980495 Fulton Canyon & 

Gordon Canyon 

Erosion control: terraces & WASCOB 

systems 

13 WASCOB 1998 Sherman SWCD $28,510.00

990906 Trout Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, bank 

stabilization 

16 anchored 

structs, 0.066 

M stabilized

1999 Trout Creek 

Watershed 

Council, Jeff 

County SWCD 

$58,900.00

20020811 Trout Cr Fish passage improvements: 6 pushup dams removed, replaced with 

infiltration galleries 

6 2002 Jefferson 

County SWCD 

$115,681.00

20010980 Trout Cr Fish passage improvements: 3 pushup dams removed, replaced with 

infiltration galleries 

3 1998 Jefferson 

County SWCD 

$64,705.00

20010981 Trout Cr Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

infiltration gallery 

1 2002 Jefferson 

County SWCD 

$124,400.00

20040756 Ward Cr Upland off-channel watering site 1 2004 Wasco SWCD $3,482.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-6

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20020784 Upland erosion control 65 acres 2002 Sherman SWCD $3,100.00

20050683 Trout Cr Upland fence, off-channel watering 

site, grazing management 

76 ac fenced, 2 

off-channel 

sites, 76 ac 

grazing 

2005 Jefferson SWCD $30,975.00

20040747 Newcomb Draw Upland fence 5,998 ft 2004 Wasco SWCD $2,925.00

Auger Cr Ingram Meadows structure repair, 

riparian planting and riparian fencing 

6 mi 2000 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$55,425.00

Trout Cr and tribs Culvert replacement for flow and fish 

passage 

13 sites 1996-2005 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$1 million

Trout Cr watershed Road closures in Trout watershed 

along streams and culverts pulled 

50 mi 1996-2006 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$100,000.00

Trout Cr watershed Grazing changed from livestock to 

sheep, improve riparian vegetation to 

stabilize streambanks 

1989 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

Auger Creek Ingram Meadows structure repair, 

riparian planting and riparian fencing 

6 miles 2000 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$55,425.00

Trout Cr and tribs 

 

Culvert replacement for flow & fish 

passage 

13 sites 1996-2005 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$1 million

Trout Cr watershed 50 miles of road closures in Trout 

Watershed along streams and 

culverts pulled 

50 mi 1996-2006 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$100,000.00

Trout Cr watershed Grazing changed from livestock to 

sheep, improve riparian vegetation 

to stabilize streambanks 

1989 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

Deschutes River Harpham Flat Riparian Exclosure .5 mile 2000 BLM $10,000.00

Trout Cr OHV area closure fence and rehab 

to protect riparian area 

1 mile fence 2001 BLM $10,000.00

Trout Cr Widen boat ramp, eliminate 

indiscriminate boat launching to 

protect riparian area 

1 site 2001 BLM $6,000.00

Deschutes River Westside Population

20020837 Rock Creek Res. 

(White R) 

Irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

? 2002 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$120,717.00

20020836 Boulder Cr Irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

? 2002 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$104,912.00

990939 Deschutes R Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures 

175 structures 1999 Deschutes 

Resources 

Conservancy 

$73,141.00

20040748 Threemile Cr Upland irrigation 4.4 ac 2004 Wasco SWCD $13,483.00

990940 Deschutes R Instream water right transfer 1999 Deschutes 

Resources 

Conservancy 

$425,400.00

20030728 Deschutes R Riparian treatment 2 M treated 2003 Deschutes 

SWCD 

$11,123.00

20030930 Threemile Cr Upland irrigation 200 ac 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$23,028.00

20030929 unnamed draw Wetland creation ? 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$25,730.00

20030927 Deschutes R Riparian fencing 0.8 miles 2003 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$14,110.00

20050781 Jordan Cr (White R) Riparian fence/plant, upland erosion 1.5 m rip fence, 

0.75 m planted, 

2 crossings

2004 Wasco SWCD $49,462.00

20050688 Threemile Cr Upland irrigation improvements 375 ac 2005 Wasco SWCD $13,518.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-7

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20040755 Tygh Cr Upland water storage ? 2004 Wasco SWCD $6,546.00

20040805 Trout Cr Wetland improvement 0.15 ac 2004 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$28,856.00

Middle and Upper 

Whychus 

Riparian/floodplain protection/road 

closure 

15 mi 2006 USFS 

Deschutes NF 

$29,000.00

Middle Whychus Riparian planting 1 mi 2006 

USFS 

Deschutes NF $2,000.00

Middle Whychus Riparian planting 1 mi 1995 

USFS 

Deschutes NF $1,000.00

Middle Whychus Riparian planting 1 mi 2007 

USFS 

Deschutes NF $1,000.00

Deschutes River Bully Point Fence. Construct .75 

mile of fencing to improve livestock 

management in riparian area 

.75 mile 2000 BLM $6,000.00

Oak Canyon Creek Riparian fencing exclosure 1 mile 2002 BLM $10,000.00

996 Whychus Cr instream water transfers/leases 0.86 cfs 1998 Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$42,900 

990941 Whychus Cr instream water right transfer 1.81 cfs 1999 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$78,950 

990942 Whychus Cr instream water right transfer 0.6 cfs 2000 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$105,000 

991045 Whychus Cr instream water rights 

transfers/leases 

1998 Oregon Water 

Trust 

$54,343 

991046 Whychus Cr instream water rights 

transfers/leases 

1.61 cfs 1999 Oregon Water 

Trust 

$17,211 

20010982 Whychus Cr instream water right transfer/lease 2001 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$581,698 

20020571 Whychus Cr instream water rights transfer; 

irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

1.5 cfs, 377 

acres 

2002 Deschutes 

SWCD 

$548,233 

20040775 Whychus Cr upland tree planting, upland 

vegetation planting 

0.1 acre 2004 Deschutes Basin 

Land Trust 

$20,914 

20050067 Whychus Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures 

0.75 mile 2001 ODFW $6,262 

20060760 Whychus Cr instream water right transfers/leases 1.2 cfs 2006 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$914,000 

20020862 Tumalo Cr irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

 2002 Tumalo Irrigation 

District 

$1,350,000 

20020863 Tumalo Cr irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

 2002 Tumalo Irrigation 

District 

$760,000 

20050821 Tumalo Cr 2004 Tumalo Irrigation 

District 

$1,180,695 

20060534 Deschutes R 0.09 2006 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$9,686 

20040805 Trout Cr wetland improvement 0.15 acre 2004 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$28,856 

20050779 Tumalo Cr 2003 Tumalo Irrigation 

District 

$1,002,984 

20060532 Captain Jack Cr riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing, riparian vegetation planting; 

4 acres 2006 Upper 

Deschutes 

$19,080 
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-8

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

off-channel livestock watering Watershed 

Council 

20060533 Trout Cr wetland restoration, wetland invasive 

plant control 

28 acres 2006 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$35,003 

20060535 Whychus Cr instream water right transfers/leases 2.22 cfs 2005 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$143,291 

20070030 Tumalo Cr 2007 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$541,694 

996 Whychus Cr instream water transfers/leases 0.86 cfs 1998 Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$42,900 

990941 Whychus Cr instream water right transfer 1.81 cfs 1999 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$78,950 

990942 Whychus Cr instream water right transfer 0.6 cfs 2000 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$105,000 

991045 Whychus Cr instream water rights 

transfers/leases 

1998 Oregon Water 

Trust 

$54,343 

991046 Whychus Cr instream water rights 

transfers/leases 

1.61 cfs 1999 Oregon Water 

Trust 

$17,211 

20010982 Whychus Cr instream water right transfer/lease 2001 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$581,698 

20020571 Whychus Cr instream water rights transfer; 

irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

1.5 cfs, 377 

acres 

2002 Deschutes 

SWCD 

$548,233 

20040775 Whychus Cr upland tree planting, upland 

vegetation planting 

0.1 acre 2004 Deschutes Basin 

Land Trust 

$20,914 

20050067 Whychus Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures 

0.75 mile 2001 ODFW $6,262 

20060760 Whychus Cr instream water right transfers/leases 1.2 cfs 2006 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$914,000 

20020862 Tumalo Cr irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

 2002 Tumalo Irrigation 

District 

$1,350,000 

20020863 Tumalo Cr irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

 2002 Tumalo Irrigation 

District 

$760,000 

20050821 Tumalo Cr 2004 Tumalo Irrigation 

District 

$1,180,695 

20060534 Deschutes R 0.09 2006 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$9,686 

20040805 Trout Cr wetland improvement 0.15 acre 2004 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$28,856 

20050779 Tumalo Cr 2003 Tumalo Irrigation 

District 

$1,002,984 

20060532 Captain Jack Cr riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing, riparian vegetation planting; 

off-channel livestock watering 

4 acres 2006 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$19,080 

20060533 Trout Cr wetland restoration, wetland invasive 

plant control 

28 acres 2006 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$35,003 
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-9

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20060535 Whychus Cr instream water right transfers/leases 2.22 cfs 2005 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$143,291 

20070030 Tumalo Cr 2007 Upper 

Deschutes 

Watershed 

Council 

$541,694 

Crooked River Population

992 Mill Cr Riparian fencing 0.33 mile 1996 Central Oregon 

Small 

Woodlands 

Association 

$1,100 

994 Lawson Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering; legacy road improvements 

0.28 mile 1997 Dixie Meadows 

Co. 

$8,225 

 McKay Creek Riparian fencing 1.5 mile 1998 ODFW R&E $59,250 

 South Fork Crooked 

R. 

Riparian fencing 3.0 mile 1998 ODFW R&E $93,250 

 Wolf Cr Riparian fencing 1.75 mile 1998 ODFW R&E $57,815 

995 Lawson Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering, upland vegetation 

management 

3.5 mile 1995 Dixie Meadows 

Co. 

$28,700 

980009 Cadle, Wolf, 

Boardtree, Veazie, 

Crusher, Tamarack, 

Sheep, South Fork 

Wolf crks 

Instream large wood placement; 

riparian fencing; livestock removal, 

livestock exclusion; road relocated; 

fish passage improvements: 3 

culverts replaced 

,0.75 

riparian,10 mile 

instream,3 

crossing 

1998 U.S. 

Timberlands 

$16,300 

981101 Mill Cr & McKay Cr Instream large wood placement, 

anchored log structures, weirs, 

deflectors; riparian tree planting, 

riparian fencing 

2.5 mile 

instream, 4 mile 

fence 

1998 ODFW $22,125 

990735 Mill Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, weirs, 

deflectors, boulder placement, bank 

stabilization 

1 mile instream, 

riparian fence 

2000 ODFW $41,000 

990804 Dixie Cr Riparian fencing; grazing 

management: deferred grazing 

 2000 U.S. 

Timberlands 

$10,530 

990805 South Fork Wolf Cr Peak flow passage improvements, 

road vacated 

2 crossings 1999 U.S. 

Timberlands 

$4,767 

990806 Cadle Cr Road closed 1999 U.S. 

Timberlands 

$16,321 

20001144 Ochoco Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

deflectors, natural boulder 

placement; riparian tree planting, 

riparian fencing 

2 miles 2000 Crook SWCD $104,592 

 Crooked River (near 

Post) 

Riparian fencing, CREP 3 miles 2000 ODFW, NRCS $150,000 

20010956 Bear Cr Fish passage improvements: 1 

culvert with weirs installed below 

outlet 

1 crossing, 1 

mile 

2001 Crook County 

Road 

Department 

$133 

20010957 Newsome Cr Fish passage improvements: 3 

culverts with weirs installed below 

outlet 

3 crossing, 4 

miles 

2000 Crook County 

Road 

Department 

$3,200 

20010958 South Fork Crooked 

R, trib of 

Fish passage improvements: 1 

culvert with weirs installed below 

outlet 

1 crossing, 6 

miles 

2000 Crook County 

Road 

Department 

$1,637 

20010959 Lawson Cr Road vacated, road relocated 2001 ODF $613 

20010960 McKay Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 4.5 miles 2001 Crooked River $12,500 
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-10

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

fencing Watershed 

Council 

20010961 McKay Cr Riparian tree planting 1 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$1,450 

20010962 Crooked R Riparian tree planting 0.25 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$200 

20010964 Wolf Cr Riparian fencing 0.5 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$1,500 

20010965 Duncan Cr Riparian tree planting 2 miles 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$6,850 

20010966 South Fork Crooked 

R 

Riparian fencing 4 miles 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$13,000 

20010967 Little Bear Cr Riparian fencing 5 miles 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$14,000 

20010968 Little Bear Cr Riparian tree planting 4 miles 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$2,100 

20010969 Bear Cr Riparian tree planting 4 miles 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$1,000 

20010970 Ochoco Cr Riparian tree planting 0.5 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$500 

20010971 Mill Cr Riparian fencing 0.5 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$1,500 

20010972 Mill Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing 

0.5 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$2,000 

20010973 Mill Cr Riparian fencing 1 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$2,500 

20010974 Mill Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing 

1 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$2,650 

20010975 Ochoco Cr Riparian tree planting 0.5 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$1,100 

20010976 Ochoco Cr Riparian tree planting 0.5 mile 2001 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$300 

20011142 Mill Cr & Allen Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, full spanning 

weirs, deflectors, bank stabilization; 

riparian tree planting, riparian fencing

2 miles 2001 ODFW $55,000 

20020573 Mill Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, engineered 

structures: full spanning weirs, 

deflectors 

1 mile 2002 ODFW, Crooked 

River Watershed 

Council 

$37,600 

20020574 Crooked R/ Shotgun 

Cr/ Pine Cr 

instream natural boulder placement; 

engineered structures: deflectors; 

riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing; off-channel livestock 

0.25 mile, 2.5 

miles, 100 

acres 

2002 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$63,993 
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-11

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

watering, noxious weed control 

20020575 Wickiup Cr wetland improvement 5 acres 2002 Private 

Landowner 

$25,147 

20020854 Bear Cr off-channel livestock watering, other 

grazing management, upland erosion 

control 

25 acres 2002 Crook SWCD $16,681 

20020855 Pine Cr upland erosion control 200 acres 2002 Crook SWCD $21,013 

20020856 Ochoco Cr natural boulder placement; riparian 

fencing 

0.7 mile 2002 Crook SWCD $11,822 

20020864 off-channel livestock watering 2002 Bedortha 

Ranches, Inc. 

$10,717 

20020868 Eagle Cr upland vegetation management: 

juniper removal 

40 acres 2002 Crook SWCD $2,300 

20030717 Freeman Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

weirs; gss (410 pc) 

0.75 mile 2003 Crook SWCD $14,736 

20030719 McKay Cr fish passage improvements: 1 fish 

ladder installed, 2 flash boards 

modified 

14 miles 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$188,727 

20030720 McKay Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, deflectors; 

riparian tree planting, riparian fencing

0.3 mile 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$10,926 

20030721 McKay Cr Deflectors, channel alteration; 

riparian tree planting, riparian fencing

1.5 miles 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$93,650 

 Little McKay Cr Instream boulder and large wood 

placement, riparian protection 

1.7 miles 2003 US Forest 

Service 

$183,135 

20030722 Mill Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, weirs, 

deflectors 

1 mile 2002 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$17,911 

20030723 Duncan Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing; other upland activity; fish 

passage improvement: other 

diversions modified 

0.3 mile, 4 mile 

hab 

2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$34,875 

20030724 Mill Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing, water gap development 

0.3 mile 2002 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$6,642 

20030725 Mill Cr Water gap elimination; irrigation 

systems for improved water 

conservation 

0.2 mile 2002 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$3,329 

20030726 South Fork Crooked 

R 

Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing 

2.3 miles 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$12,259 

20030762 Upland vegetation management 

(juniper control), other upland activity

20 miles 2003 Crook SWCD $1,658 

20030763 Japanese Cr Off-channel livestock watering 2003 Crook SWCD $12,987 

20030764 Duncan Cr Riparian tree planting 0.7 mile 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$6,950 

20030765 McKay Cr Riparian fencing 1 mile 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$13,680 

20030921 Lost Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing, riparian invasive plant 

control; peak flow passage 

improvements, other road activity 

1.4 mile 2002 The Nature 

Conservancy 

$54,449 

20040656 Long Hollow Cr Upland grazing management, upland 

vegetation management, upland 

vegetation planting 

200 acres 2004 Crook SWCD $17,524 
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-12

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20040657 Clover Cr Off-channel livestock watering, 

upland erosion control 

 2004 Crook SWCD $13,839 

20040658 Wickiup Cr Off-channel livestock watering 2004 Crook SWCD $7,956 

20040659 Long Hollow Cr Upland vegetation management 100 acres 2004 Crook SWCD $5,244 

20040772 Crooked R Riparian invasive plant control; 

upland invasive plant control 

5.5 miles 2003 Crooked River 

Weed 

Management 

Area 

$185,906 

20040773 Crooked R Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering 

0.5 mile 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$57,270 

20040906 Pine Cr Upland vegetation management 

(juniper control), upland vegetation 

planting 

680 acres 2003 Crook SWCD $40,686 

20040909 Little Bear Cr Off-channel livestock watering 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$44,727 

20040910 McKay Cr Off-channel livestock watering 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$31,551 

20040911 Camp Cr Off-channel livestock watering 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$7,690 

20040912 Wolf Cr Off-channel livestock watering 2003 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$20,062 

20040913 McKay Cr Instream anchored habitat structure 

placement, rock/boulder flow 

deflector installed, riparian tree 

planting, riparian fencing, peak flow 

passage improvements 

0.5 mile 2004 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$109,000 

20050048 South Fork Crooked 

R 

Riparian tree planting 3 miles 2004 ODFW $5,500 

20050685 Willow Cr Riparian tree planting 2.35 miles 2005 Deschutes River 

Conservancy 

$5,162 

20050686 Shotgun Cr Off-channel livestock watering, 

upland vegetation management, 

upland vegetation planting 

300 acres 2005 Crook SWCD $44,931 

20050693 McKay Cr Irrigation system improvement 50 acres 2005 Crook SWCD $10,550 

20050697 Crooked R Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing, bank sloping/floodplain 

bench creation 

0.5 mile 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$29,500 

20050698 Crooked R Instream habitat enhancement: 

deflectors; riparian tree planting, 

riparian fencing, sloping/floodplain 

bench creation 

2 miles 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$162,300 

20050699 Crooked R Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing, bank sloping/floodplain 

bench creation 

0.5 mile 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$39,300 

20050700 Crooked R Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing 

1 mile 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$32,500 

20050701 Crooked R Instream habitat enhancement: 

deflectors; riparian tree planting, 

bank sloping/floodplain bench 

creation 

0.5 mile 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$33,400 

20050702 Crooked R Riparian tree planting, bank 

sloping/floodplain bench creation 

0.25 mile 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

$25,000 
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-13

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

Council 

20050703 Mill Cr Other instream activity; irrigation 

system improvement 

 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$29,466 

20050797 Marks Cr Main stream channel 

modified/created, instream rock 

weirs installed, riparian tree planting, 

riparian fencing 

0.75 mile 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$37,224 

20050798 Marks Cr Main stream channel 

modified/created, instream rock 

weirs installed, riparian tree planting, 

riparian fencing 

1 mile 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$58,775 

20050799 Marks Cr Fish passage improvements: other 

diversions modified; irrigation 

diversions with fish screens installed 

15 mile hab 2005 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$44,250 

20060540 North Fork Beaver Cr Grazing management, upland 

fencing 

1200 acres 2006 Crook SWCD $24,464 

20060542 Little Bear Cr Stream bank stabilized: bank 

resloped 

0.1 mile 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$14,538 

20060543 South Fork Crooked 

R 

Upland fencing 38 acres 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$5,429 

20060544 Marks Cr Riparian tree planting 1 mile 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$10,620 

20060545 McKay Cr Riparian tree planting 0.5 mile 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$5,430 

20060546 Little McKay Cr Rock/boulder flow deflector installed, 

instream rock weirs installed, 

instream large wood placement; 

riparian tree planting; other upland 

activity; peak flow passage 

improvements 

2 crossing, 1 

mile 

2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$165,599 

20060547 Crooked R Irrigation system improved: tailwater 

collection system improved 

0.2 acre 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$6,749 

20060548 Crooked R Riparian tree planting 2.5 miles 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$22,572 

20060549 McKay Cr Other instream activity; riparian tree 

planting, riparian fencing; off-channel 

livestock watering 

1 mile 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$47,170 

20060550 Mill Cr Other instream activity; riparian tree 

planting, riparian fencing 

1 mile 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$22,347 

20060551 Mill Cr Instream rock weirs installed, other 

instream activity; riparian tree 

planting, riparian fencing; off-channel 

livestock watering 

1 mile 2006 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$41,648 

20060770 Ochoco R, trib of Upland vegetation management 

(juniper control) 

20 acres 2004 Crook SWCD $1,928 

20070027 Crooked R Other instream activity 1 splitter wall 2007 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$292,440 

20070496 Pine Cr Upland vegetation planting 100 acres 2007 Crook SWCD $4,470 

20070497 Shotgun Cr Upland vegetation planting 200 acres 2007 Crook SWCD $8,549 
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-14

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20070498 No Name Cr Upland erosion control, upland 

vegetation management (juniper 

control) 

50 acres 2007 Crook SWCD $13,387 

20070499 Yank Gulch Off-channel livestock watering, 

water/sediment control basins 

40 acres 2007 Crook SWCD $13,311 

20070500 Ochoco Cr Instream boulder placement, 

instream rock flow deflectors 

installed, stream bank stabilized: 

bioengineering 

0.02 mile 2007 Crook SWCD $4,120 

20070501 Wolf Cr Riparian fencing 0.5 mile 2007 Crook SWCD $6,718 

20070502 Long Hollow Cr Upland vegetation management 

(juniper control), upland vegetation 

planting 

125 acres 2007 Crook SWCD $9,859 

20070503 Bear Cr Off-channel livestock watering 2007 Crook SWCD $13,884 

20070504 Pine Cr upland vegetation planting 50 acres 2007 Crook SWCD $4,767 

20070505 Newsome Cr upland vegetation planting 45 acres 2007 Crook SWCD $3,467 

20070506 upland vegetation management 

(juniper control) 

65 acres 2008 Crook SWCD $6,503 

20070507 Johnson Cr upland vegetation management 

(juniper control) 

50 acres 2008 Crook SWCD $6,470 

20070538 McKay Cr & Mill Cr riparian tree planting 2 miles 2007 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$12,500 

 McKay Cr instream boulder and wood 

placement, riparian protection 

4 miles 2007 US Forest 

Service 

$144,825 

20070539 South Fork Crooked 

R 

riparian fencing, other upland activity 0.36 mile 2007 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$17,504 

20070540 Lower Crooked R stream bank stabilized; riparian tree 

planting 

0.06 mile 2007 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$13,073 

20070541 South Fork Beaver 

Cr 

stream bank stabilized, riparian 

vegetation planting; off-channel 

livestock watering sites developed, 

Livestock stream access/crossing 

created or improved, upland fencing, 

upland vegetation management 

(juniper control) 

25 miles 2007 Crooked River 

Watershed 

Council 

$513,425 

20070749 Lost Cr fish ladder installed 3 miles hab 2006 The Nature 

Conservancy 

$237,693 

Lower Mainstem John Day Population

20040813 John Day R Riparian fencing 2 m 2002 ODFW $12,400.00

20050666 Ferry Canyon Upland veg management 360 ac 2005 Gilliam SWCD $15,769.00

20040816 John Day R Riparian fencing 0.25 m 1997 ODFW $1,750.00

20050665 Coyote Canyon 

Spring 

Upland wildlife 1 ac 2005 Gilliam SWCD $468.00

20040759 Parrish Cr Upland fence, off-channel 280 ac, 1 site 2003 Wheeler SWCD $13,369.00

20040779 Rock Cr, Hay Cr, & 

John Day R 

Upland off-channel watering site 4 sites 2004 Gilliam-East 

John Day 

Watershed 

Council 

$54,955.00

20050663 Lonerock Cr Upland 80 ac 2005 Gilliam SWCD $3,926.00

20050662 Lost Valley Cr Instream, riparian planting 5 weirs, 0.03 m 

planting

2005 Wheeler SWCD $4,731.00

20040811 Lake Cr Riparian fencing 2 m 2002 ODFW $12,400.00

990741 Lake Cr Fish passage improvements: culvert 1 culvert 1998 Wheeler County $10,300.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-15

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

upgraded 

20050668 Upland terracing 6,362 ft 2005 Sherman SWCD $7,446.00

20040809 Johnny Cr Riparian fencing 1 m 2002 ODFW $5,000.00

20040810 Lake Cr Riparian fencing 1.25 m 2002 ODFW $12,500.00

20040815 John Day R Riparian fencing 0.33 m 1997 ODFW $2,310.00

20020786 Other grazing management: fencing ? 2002 Sherman SWCD $5,008.00

20040730 Cottonwood Canyon Off-channel watering site 1 2004 Sherman SWCD $2,832.00

20040731 Fulton Canyon Upland WASCOB 440 ac 2004 Sherman SWCD $2,604.00

20040732 Bell Canyon Upland fencing 600 ac 2004 Sherman SWCD $6,894.00

20020830 Pine Cr Off-channel livestock watering 8 2002 Wheeler SWCD $8,614.00

20020829 Little Muddy Cr Off-channel livestock watering 1 2002 Wheeler SWCD $14,102.00

20050670 Upland terracing 7,765 ft 2005 Sherman SWCD $7,603.00

20020790 West Branch Bridge 

Cr 

Upland vegetation management: 

juniper control 

160 ac 2002 Wheeler SWCD $10,700.00

20011016 Rock Cr Fish passage improvements: 1 

culvert retrofitted 

1 2000 ODOT $15,000.00

20020788 Nelson Cr, trib of Riparian juniper removal; other 

grazing management: planned 

livestock grazing, upland vegetation 

management: juniper control 

0.25 m, 10 ac 2002 Wheeler SWCD $1,950.00

990740 Alder Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing 

0.25 m fenced, 

1.21 ac planted

1999 Wheeler County $400.00

20050669 WASCOB 2 2005 Sherman SWCD $1,254.00

20040826 John Day R Riparian fencing 0.27 m 1998 ODFW $1,890.00

990907 several Riparian tree planting; 

reseeding/brush harvest, erosion 

control: grassed waterways 

0.02 m, 6 ac 

riparian 

planted, 452 ac 

upland treated

1999 Sherman SWCD $62,263.00

20040757 Cove Cr Off-channel site 5 2004 Wheeler SWCD $6,775.00

20040758 Alder Cr, trib of Upland irrigation 5.5 ac 2004 Wheeler County $2,799.00

20050667 East Fork Thirty Mile 

Cr 

Riparian fencing 4.17 m 2005 Gilliam SWCD $38,130.00

20020582 Rock Cr Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $32,160.00

20020789 Nelson Cr Other grazing management 19 ac 2002 Wheeler SWCD $2,550.00

20010883 John Day R Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

pump station 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $65,232.00

20001169 Rock Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, weirs, 

deflectors, off-channel habitat 

2 weirs, 2 

deflectors, 1 

side channel 

(50 ft), 1 offchannel site

1996 Morrow County 

Public Works 

$76,404.00

20010881 John Day R Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

pump station 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $74,641.00

20040938 Mountain Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures 

0.32 m 2004 ODFW $3,000.00

20020840 John Day R Irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

81 ac 2002 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$20,122.00

20040931 John Day R Fish passage 1 2004 Grant SWCD $90,321.00

20040927 John Day R Fish passage 2 2004 Grant SWCD $35,026.00

20040926 Badger Cr Fish passage 4 2004 Grant SWCD $43,025.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-16

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20040822 John Day R Riparian fencing 1.25 ac 1998 ODFW $6,250.00

20040923 West Branch Bridge 

Cr 

Fish passage – push-up dam, 

irrigation dam 

1 dam, 67 ac 2004 Wheeler SWCD $104,021.00

20040839 Alder Cr Riparian fencing 0.26 m 2001 ODFW $710.00

20010884 John Day R Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

pump station 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $115,803.00

20020599 Gauge Cr Upland vegetation management: 

juniper control, grass seeding 

49 ac 2002 Wheeler SWCD $11,686.00

20020598 West Branch Bridge 

Cr 

Livestock exclusion, upland 

vegetation management: juniper 

control, brush removal, reseeding 

3600 ft cross 

fence, 11.5 ac 

veg. mang, 49 

ac juniper, 8 ac 

brush

2002 Wheeler SWCD $9,988.00

20020597 West Branch Bridge 

Cr 

Fish passage improvements: 1 

culvert replaced with open bottom 

arch culvert 

1 2002 Wheeler SWCD $24,145.00

20020596 Pine Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures, 'V' structures; 

fish passage improvements: 1 culvert 

removed and not replaced, 1 

irrigation ditch removed 

21 anchored 

structures,

3 v structures

2002 Wheeler SWCD $69,000.00

20010885 John Day R Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

permanent diversion structure 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $52,204.00

20010886 John Day R Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

permanent diversion structure 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $33,740.00

20010887 John Day R Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

permanent diversion structure 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $29,970.00

20040924 Mountain Cr Riparian planting 0.5 m 2004 Wheeler SWCD $3,950.00

20040842 Cottonwood Cr Riparian fencing 0.25 m 1998 ODFW $2,500.00

20040819 John Day R Riparian fencing 0.67 m 1998 ODFW $3,330.00

20040820 Dry Fork Thirtymile 

Cr 

Riparian fencing 0.02 m 1998 ODFW $2,800.00

20040729 Jackknife, 

Watershed 

Upland erosion control 60 ac 2004 Sherman SWCD $6,451.00

20050661 Lost Valley Cr Road 2 culverts 2005 Wheeler SWCD $3,751.00

20020785 Off-channel livestock watering 1 2002 Sherman SWCD $6,212.00

20040827 John Day R Riparian fencing 1.3 m 1998 ODFW $2,324.00

20010910 West Branch Bridge 

Cr 

Riparian fencing; off-channel 

livestock watering, cross fencing 

0.75 m rip 

fence, 1,320 ft. 

up. fence

2001 Wheeler SWCD $9,468.00

20010909 Johnson Cr Riparian fencing; off-channel 

livestock watering 

0.75 m 2001 Wheeler SWCD $15,351.00

20040829 John Day R Riparian fencing 0.83 m 1998 ODFW $4,166.00

20050659 Riparian fencing, off-channel, 

WASCOB 

2 m fenced, 5 

off-channel 

sites, 

6 control basins

2003 Sherman SWCD $106,385.00

20040828 Lake Cr Riparian fencing 0.12 m 1998 ODFW $1,750.00

20010903 John Day R Riparian fencing 0.68 m 2001 ODFW $3,400.00

20040841 Johnny Cr Riparian fencing 0.5 m 1998 ODFW $5,000.00

20010898 John Day R Riparian fencing 0.4 m 2000 ODFW $2,230.00

20010888 John Day R Fish passage improvements: 1 push- 1 2001 Grant SWCD $64,844.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-17

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

up dam removed, replaced with 

pump station 

20001125 Rock Cr Upland erosion control: sediment 

control basins 

4 control basins 2000 Gilliam SWCD $4,316.00

20001126 Sixmile Canyon & 

Hay Cr 

Upland erosion control 617 ac 2000 Gilliam SWCD $39,611.00

20001127 John Day R Riparian fencing; off-channel 

livestock watering 

1.5 m fence, 

9 sites

2000 Wheeler SWCD $29,463.00

990908 Pine Hollow Off-channel livestock watering, 

grazing management: cross-fencing, 

erosion control: sediment basins 

9,702 ft fenced, 

980 ac 

WASCOB, 420 

ac rip plants, 1 

off-channel site

1999 Sherman SWCD $65,618.00

990937 John Day R Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering, irrigation systems for 

improved water conservation 

5 m fenced, 6 

ac planted, 3 

off-channel 

sites, 

46 ac treated

1999 Wheeler SWCD $57,128.00

20010889 John Day R Fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

pump station 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $99,950.00

1115 John Day R Riparian fencing 1 mile 1997 ODFW $7,000.00

1116 John Day R Riparian fencing 1 mile 1996 ODFW $7,000.00

20030841 Lake Cr Riparian tree planting, riparian 

fencing 

4 m 2003 ODFW $43,000.00

20030838 Mountain Cr Instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures 

25 structures 2003 ODFW $3,500.00

20030835 Thirtymile Cr Upland off-channel watering site 1 2003 Gilliam SWCD $5,194.00

20030833 Hay Cr Upland 1 sed. Basin, 

1 off-channel 

site

2003 Gilliam SWCD $4,266.00

20040831 John Day R Riparian fencing 0.8 m 1998 ODFW $5,600.00

1117 John Day R Riparian fencing 1.25 miles 1997 ODFW $8,750.00

20030925 WASCOB 50 ac 2003 Sherman SWCD $4,045.00

1175 Pine Hollow 

Watershed 

Off-channel livestock watering, cross 

fencing, riparian pasture, erosion 

control: WASCOB, juniper control 

5 ac juniper, 2 

sed. Control 

basins, 4,000 ft 

terrace, 65 ac 

planted

1997 Sherman SWCD $27,200.00

20050694 Upland terracing 7,741 ft 2005 Sherman SWCD $6,667.00

980496 Pine Hollow & tribs Off-channel livestock watering, cross 

fencing, erosion control: terraces & 

WASCOB 

6 sed. Basins, 

1 off-channel 

site, 5,296 ft 

terrace, 65 ac 

planted

1998 Sherman & 

Wasco SWCD 

$53,558.00

20030947 Muddy Cr Fish passage 1 dam 2003 Wasco County 

SWCD 

$55,069.00

20030948 Service Cr Upland erosion control 65 ac erosion 

manag. 330 ac 

fenced, 40 ac 

juniper

2003 Wheeler SWCD $19,057.00

20030960 Off-channel watering sites 5 2004 Sherman SWCD $3,671.00

20040728 Upland sed. Control basins 600 ac 2004 Sherman SWCD $2,385.00

20030858 Upland sed. Control basins 6 2003 Sherman SWCD $2,600.00

20050772 John Day R Upland fence, off-channel watering 

site 

I site 2001 Wheeler SWCD $14,280.00

20050770 Muleshoe Cr Riparian fencing, planting 0.5 m fenced, 1 2004 Wheeler SWCD $10,935.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-18

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

m planted

20050769 Alder Cr Upland juniper treatment 360 ac 2003 Wheeler SWCD $33,684.00

20050768 West Branch Bridge, 

Bridge, Gable, 

Nelson, Keyes, Bear, 

Alder, Pine crks 

Upland irrigation, water measuring 

device 

? 2003 Wheeler SWCD $9,014.00

20050767 Mountain Cr Riparian planting 0.19 m 2003 Wheeler SWCD $2,500.00

20050766 Kahler Cr, Corncob 

Cr 

Instream log berm, riparian 

fencing/planting, juniper 

0.78 m fenced, 

0.53 m planted, 

1 structure, 15 

ac juniper 

treated

2004 Wheeler SWCD $8,715.00

20030846 Mountain Cr Instream large wood placement 51 logs 2003 ODFW $3,200.00

20030859 Off-channel watering site 1 site 2003 Sherman SWCD $14,566.00

20030847 Upland terrace 35 ac 2003 Sherman SWCD $1,525.00

20030857 Upland erosion control 6 ac 2003 Sherman SWCD $3,765.00

20030856 Upland WASCOB 2 sites 2003 Sherman SWCD $5,876.00

20030854 Upland range 300 ac 2003 Sherman SWCD $4,481.00

20030853 Upland range 412 ac 2003 Sherman SWCD $8,400.00

20030851 Upland brush management 135 ac 2003 Sherman SWCD $8,520.00

20030850 Off-channel watering site 1 2003 Sherman SWCD $14,037.00

20030832 Lamberson Canyon Off-channel watering site 1 2003 Gilliam County 

SWCD 

$3,765.00

20030860 Cottonwood Cr Off-channel watering site 5 2003 Wheeler SWCD $8,125.00

20050674 West Branch Bridge 

Cr 

Upland juniper, noxious weeds, offchannel watering site 15 ac, 1 site 2005 Wheeler SWCD $5,641.00

20030834 Stackhouse Canyon Off-channel watering site 1 2003 Gilliam SWCD $6,050.00

20020853 John Day R off-channel livestock watering 1 2002 Gilliam SWCD $4,562.00

20040712 Holmes Cr Upland irrigation 25 ac 2005 Monument 

SWCD 

$4,209.00

20020852 John Day R off-channel livestock watering 1 2002 Gilliam SWCD $6,725.00

20020851 Rock Cr irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

42 ac 2002 Gilliam SWCD $12,953.00

20040717 Rood Canyon, area 

of 

Off-channel watering site 1 2004 Morrow SWCD $12,726.00

20040721 Upland erosion control, WASCOB 75 ac 2004 Sherman SWCD $2,499.00

20040723 Upland erosion control, WASCOB 1 2004 Sherman SWCD $5,794.00

20040727 Upland brush management 600 ac 2004 Sherman SWCD $3,051.00

20040664 Thirty Mile Cr Off-channel watering site 5 2004 Gilliam SWCD $7,561.00

981090 John Day R fish passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with pump 

1 structure 1998 Grant SWCD $109,017.00

Rock Cr instream structure removal 1 mile 2000 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$4,500.00

Rock Cr Cutbank (channel morphology) 

Restoration-instream structure 

placement 

2 miles 2001 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$11,000.00

Wheeler Cr fish passage improvement 3 miles 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$2,500.00

Alder Cr fish passage improvement 2 miles 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$1,500.00

Davis Cr fish passage improvement 1 mile 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$2,000.00

Corncob Cr fish passage improvement 1 mile 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$1,500.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-19

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

Wheeler Cr Riparian planting 36 acres 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$6,300.00

Wheeler Cr Riparian planting 14 acres 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$2,450.00

Henry Cr - electric riparian corridor and pasture fencing 0.25 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$300.00

Henry Cr - electric riparian corridor and pasture fencing 0.75 2001 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$750.00

EF Bologna Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 2 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$16,000.00

Rock Creek Instream structure removal 1 mi 2000 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$4,500.00

Deep Creek Riparian fencing 5 miles 2000 BLM $10,000.00

John Day Ag field rehabilitation. Control 

weeds, plant riparian shrubs and 

cottonwoods 

300 ac

2 miles

2000 BLM $12,000.00

Bridge Creek Spring developments provide 

alternative water sources for cattle 

3 springs 2000 BLM $9,000.00

Lower mainstem 

John Day 

Wild and Scenic River Management 

Plan changed season of use for 

grazing allotments to protect riparian 

conditions 

Tumwater Falls 

to Service 

Creek

2001 BLM Unknown

Esau Canyon Pasture development and riparian 

fencing 

11 riparian 

miles 

2003 BLM $44,000.00

Cordwood Canyon Riparian fencing 0.3 mile 2003 BLM $10,500.00

Bear Creek Willow Spring riparian fencing (trib to 

Bear Creek, then Bridge Creek)

2.7 riparian 

miles

2003 BLM $10,000.00

Lower mainstem 

John Day 

Green Fence #2 riparian fencing 3 miles 2006 BLM $14,000.00

Lower mainstem 

John Day 

Stanley ag. Field/John Day River 

riparian fencing 

1 mile 2006 BLM $8,000.00

Upper Mainstem John Day Population 

20001163 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed 1 2000 Grant SWCD $60,386.00

981098 John Day R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

55 acres 

treated, 2,800 ft 

pipe

1995 Grant SWCD $46,778.00

20010882 John Day R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

161 ac 2001 Grant SWCD $67,930.00

20001161 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed 1 1999 Grant SWCD $258,063.00

990719 Canyon Cr boulder placement; riparian fencing, 

watergaps 

2 water gaps, 

0.45 fencing

1995 ODFW $32,155.00

981097 John Day R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

37 ac treated, 

4,780 ft pipe

1995 Grant SWCD $94,320.00

20001162 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed 1 2000 Grant SWCD $60,258.00

20040935 Standard Creek 

Diversion 

Fish passage improvements, pushup dam 1 2004 Grant SWCD $22,351.00

20020752 Indian Cr fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $20,072.00

20020586 Indian Cr riparian fencing 0.6 m 2002 ODFW $6,286.00

20020751 Indian Cr fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 1 2002 Grant SWCD $20,072.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-20

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

20040934 Dixie Cr Fish passage, push-up dam 1 2004 Grant SWCD $13,502.00

20001164 John Day R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

66 ac 2000 Grant SWCD $50,836.00

20001165 Indian Cr fish passage improvements: 2 pushup dams permanently removed 2 2000 Grant SWCD $30,973.00

20020587 John Day R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

300 ac 2002 Grant SWCD $60,982.00

20040830 John Day R Riparian planting 0.15 m 2002 ODFW $760.00

20020588 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with permanent diversion 

structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $24,830.00

20020589 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $21,675.00

20020590 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $24,703.00

20020591 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $23,110.00

20020592 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent diversion 

structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $31,918.00

20050771 John Day R Upland irrigation water measuring 

devises 

2002 Grant SWCD $5,013.00

20040929 John Day R Fish passage push-up dam 1 2004 Grant SWCD $58,844.00

1114 Canyon Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

boulder placement; riparian tree 

planting 

40 boulders, 

other not 

reported

1996 ODFW $900.00

20040933 John Day R Upland irrigation improvement 50 ac 2003 Grant SWCD $24,961.00

20020792 Indian Cr fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed and replaced with 

permanent lay-flat stachion diversion 

structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $19,057.00

20020791 Indian Cr fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed and replaced with 

4.7 permanent lay-flat station 

diversion structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $19,746.00

20020581 Beech Cr Riparian fencing 4.7 m 2002 ODFW $16,402.00

20040928 John Day R Fish passage push-up dam 2 2004 Grant SWCD $19,056.00

20040930 Canyon Cr Fish passage, push-up dam 1 2004 Grant SWCD $15,090.00

981099 Widows Cr riparian fencing; fish passage 

improvements: push-up dam 

removed, replaced with screened 

inlet structures 

2.1 miles 1995 Grant SWCD $228,570.00

20040932 John Day R Fish passage, push-up dams 2 2004 Grant SWCD $44,664.00

20050673 Grouse Cr Upland juniper, noxious weeds, 

plantings 

530 ac juniper, 

280 ac weeds, 

305 ac plant

2005 Grant SWCD $55,361.00

981085 Indian Cr riparian fencing 2.68 miles 1998 ODFW $29,858.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-21

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20001157 Grub Cr riparian fencing 1.6 m 2000 ODFW $20,656.00

20040823 Widows Cr riparian fencing 0.25 m 1998 ODFW $3,500.00

20010890 John Day R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

66 ac 2001 Grant SWCD $40,530.00

1122 Widows Cr/John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 3.45 miles 1996 ODFW $24,150.00

981092 John Day R fish passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with 

infiltration gallery 

1 structure 1997 Grant SWCD $61,498.00

20040669 Blue Mountain Ditch, 

area of 

Upland juniper 50 ac 2004 Grant SWCD $4,601.00

20030939 Deardorf Cr invasive species removal ? 2003 Grant Weed 

Control 

$1,708.00

20040668 Blue Mtn. Ditch, area 

of 

invasive species removal 75 ac 2004 Grant SWCD $8,091.00

1120 Canyon Cr boulder placement; riparian fencing 1 mile, 

20 boulders

1996 ODFW $17,000.00

981084 Indian Cr fish passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with 

infiltration gallery 

1 1998 Grant SWCD $17,060.00

20040825 John Day R riparian fencing 0.6 m 1998 ODFW $3,030.00

20040812 Laycock Cr riparian fencing 0.75 m 2003 ODFW $7,500.00

20040666 McClellan Cr, area of Upland juniper treatment 150.8 ac 2005 Grant SWCD $14,556.00

20040665 Laycock Cr, area of Upland juniper treatment 86.8 ac 2004 Grant SWCD $7,144.00

20040808 Laycock Cr riparian fencing 0.5 m 2003 ODFW $6,000.00

981086 John Day R riparian fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering 

4 miles, 1 site 1998 ODFW $46,427.00

20030732 Dads Cr & Dixie Cr riparian fencing 2.25 m 2003 Grant SWCD $11,112.00

20030731 Upland treatment 80 ac 2003 Grant SWCD $5,027.00

981089 John Day R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

35 ac 1999 Grant SWCD $69,741.00

981091 John Day R fish passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with pump 

1 pump station, 

replaced 1,980 

ft pipe 

1997 Grant SWCD $136,777.00

20010902 Indian Cr riparian tree planting, riparian fencing 0.3 m fenced, 4 

ac planted

2000 ODFW $2,400.00

20040837 Dry Cr Riparian fencing 2 m 1998 ODFW $11,400.00

20050664 Upland juniper removal 135 ac 2005 Grant SWCD $12,400.00

20020585 Grub Cr riparian fencing 0.5 m 2002 ODFW $5,943.00

20030843 Canyon Cr riparian fencing 0.5 m 2003 ODFW $11,500.00

20030842 Canyon Cr/Berry Cr riparian fencing 1.4 m 2003 ODFW $18,176.00

981096 John Day R riparian fencing; fish passage 

improvements: push-up dam 

removed, replaced with pump station

0.43 miles, 1 

pump station

1996 Grant SWCD $94,372.00

20030840 John Day R riparian fencing 0.7 m 2003 ODFW $15,000.00

20030839 Canyon Cr riparian fencing 0.25 m 2003 ODFW $10,000.00

20010901 West Fork Grub Cr riparian fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering 

1.1 m fencing, 

3 sites

2000 ODFW $23,164.00

20001160 John Day R fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed 1 1999 Grant SWCD $61,922.00

20030837 Indian Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures; riparian fencing

27 structures, 

0.5 m fence

2003 ODFW $13,000.00

20030836 McClellan Cr Upland juniper treatment 94 ac 2003 Grant SWCD $7,820.00

20010905 Beech Cr riparian fencing 1 m 2001 ODFW $7,910.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-22

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

981095 John Day R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

82 ac, 

3 pump stations

1996 Grant SWCD $103,367.00

20020753 Indian Cr fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

1 structure 2002 Grant SWCD $20,072.00

981094 John Day R fish passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with 

permanent structure 

1 structure 1996 Grant SWCD $34,186.00

990723 Indian Cr boulder placement; riparian fencing, 

watergaps 

86 boulders, 

0.3 m fence

1999 ODFW $8,690.00

981093 John Day R cross fencing, irrigation systems for 

improved water conservation; fish 

passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with 

infiltration gallery 

1 structure 1998 Grant SWCD $221,457.00

20020583 Canyon Cr riparian fence maintenance 2002 ODFW $1,190.00

Little Pine Creek Culvert replacement for fish passage 1 culvert 2005 BLM $25,000.00

Cottonwood Creek Riparian fence 1 mile 2006 BLM $17,000.00

Little Pine Creek Re-route valley bottom road; 

obliterate and re-contour old roadbed

1 mile 2006 BLM $98,000.00

Middle Fork John Day Population

20010891 Camp Cr fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

permanent diversion structure 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $32,975.00

20001167 South Fork Long Cr fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed 1 1999 Grant SWCD $18,297.00

20001128 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

instream habitat enhancement: offchannel habitat; riparian tree 

planting; wetland habitat 

improvements 

1 side-channel, 

3 ac wetland, 

0.006 ac 

riparian plants

2000 The Nature 

Conservancy 

$12,734.00

20040840 Granite Cr Riparian fencing 0.8 m 2001 ODFW $8,750.00

991049 Big Cr, Hawkins Cr, 

Big Boulder Cr, & 

Middle Fork John 

Day R 

instream water right transfer/lease 2000 Oregon Water 

Trust 

$136,998.00

20010892 Camp Cr fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

permanent diversion structure 

1 2001 Grant SWCD $35,378.00

990718 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

riparian fencing, watergaps 1.3 m 1996 ODFW $78,270.00

981087 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

fish passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with pipeline

800 ft of pipe, 

headgates

1998 Grant SWCD $21,364.00

1123 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

streambank stabilization; riparian 

fencing 

1.3 miles 

fenced, 0.5 m 

stabilized

1996 ODFW $30,480.00

1121 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

riparian fencing 3.75 miles 1997 ODFW $26,250.00

1119 Camp Cr riparian fencing 0.5 miles 1997 ODFW $7,230.00

990722 Camp Cr riparian fencing, watergaps 0.5 m fenced, 

3 gaps

1997 ODFW $32,735.00

20010893 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

riparian fencing 5 m 2001 ODFW $26,250.00

20010894 Paul Cr riparian fencing 1 m 1999 ODFW $21,000.00

20020843 Pass Cr riparian fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering 

0.25 m 2002 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$26,345.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-23

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20040818 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

Riparian fencing 2 m 1996 ODFW $14,000.00

20020593 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

station diversion structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $31,430.00

20020594 Middle Fork John 

Day R 

fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

1 2002 Grant SWCD $30,066.00

20040936 Camp Cr Fish passage 1 2003 Grant SWCD $12,511.00

Galena area streams Summit Fire Recovery and Fish 

Habitat Rehabilitation-instream 

structures and large wood placement

24 miles 1999 USFS 

Malheur NF 

Galena area streams Summit Fire Recovery and Fish 

Habitat Rehabilitation-log landing 

rehabilitation 

8 acres 1999 USFS 

Malheur NF 

Galena area streams Summit Fire Recovery and Fish 

Habitat Rehabilitation-meadow 

restoration (seeding, planting, water 

table restoration) 

20 acres 1999 USFS 

Malheur NF 

Galena area streams Summit Fire Recovery and Fish 

Habitat Rehabilitation-road 

decommissioning 

43 miles 1999 USFS 

Malheur NF 

Galena area streams Summit Fire Recovery and Fish 

Habitat Rehabilitation-riparian 

planting and caging 

20 miles 1999 USFS 

Malheur NF 

Galena area streams Summit Fire Recovery and Fish 

Habitat Rehabilitation-instream 

structures and large wood placement

6 miles 2000 USFS 

Malheur NF 

Galena area streams Summit Fire Recovery and Fish 

Habitat Rehabilitation-instream 

structures and large wood placement

12 miles 2001 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$16,100.00

SE Galena area 

multiple streams 

Summit fire/SE Galena hardwood 

diversity planting and protection 

6 miles 2002 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$57,375.00

Vinegar Creek riparian planting 5 miles 2002 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$4,730.00

Long Creek and MF 

John Day River 

Flood Meadows riparian planting and 

protection, spring exclosure, 

streambank protection through large 

wood placement 

1/2 mile each 2003 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$9,900.00

Long Creek, Coxie 

Creek, Camp Creek, 

Lick Creek, West 

Fork Lick Creek 

Riparian Planting, caging, riparian 

corridor and pasture fencing 

3.5 miles 2004 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$96,950.00

Camp Creek riparian planting and protection 1 mile 2005 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$9,345.00

Long Creek and 

Camp Creek 

riparian planting and caging Long Creek (1 

mile), Camp 

Creek (4 miles)

2006 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$11,343.00

Little Indian Creek Riparian corridor fencing .7 miles 1997 Umatilla NF $10,800.00

North Fork John Day Population

990477 Middle Fork Wilkins 

Cr 

peak flow passage improvements, 1 1999 Pioneer 

Resources, LLC 

$150.00

990478 Scaffold Cr road relocation 3 1999 Pioneer 

Resources, LLC 

$200.00

990479 Wilkins Cr peak flow passage improvements 6 1998 Pioneer 

Resources, LLC 

$11,000.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-24

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

990480 Snake Cr & Camas 

Cr 

peak flow passage improvements, 

surface drainage improvements 

12 structures, 

140 stations

1998 Pioneer 

Resources, LLC 

$44,048.00

990481 Fivemile Cr peak flow passage improvements, 

surface drainage improvements 

1 culvert, 

1 structure

1999 Pioneer 

Resources, LLC 

$13,000.00

990482 Wilkins Cr Voluntary Riparian Tree Retention ? 1999 Pioneer 

Resources, LLC 

$0.00

990717 Camas Cr instream large wood placement; 

riparian fencing, watergaps; offchannel livestock watering 

2.1 m fenced, 

49.7 ac

1995 ODFW $106,732.00

20040937 Cottonwood Cr Riparian fencing 3 m 2005 ODFW $43,000.00

20040714 North Fork John Day 

R 

Off-channel watering site 1 2005 Monument 

SWCD 

$3,385.00

20011133 Camas Cr riparian tree planting, riparian fencing 1 m 2001 Oregon Parks & 

Recreation Dept. 

$20,973.00

20040709 North Fork John Day 

R 

Riparian fencing 0.5 ac 2003 Monument 

SWCD 

$6,007.00

20011089 North Fork John Day 

R, trib of 

upland erosion control 10 ac 2001 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$3,350.00

20011017 Porter Cr fish passage improvements: 1 culvert 

retrofitted 

1 culvert 2000 ODOT $0.00

20040786 Porter Cr, Johnson 

Cr, Harrington Cr, & 

tribs of 

Upland fencing, off-channel watering 

site, road 

Bridge, 6 offchannel sites, 

2 ac fenced

2005 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$64,348.00

20040824 North Fork John Day 

R 

Riparian fencing 1.5 m 1998 ODFW $7,500.00

20010907 North Fork John Day 

R 

fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

permanent pumping station 

1 2000 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$35,000.00

990720 Fox Cr riparian fencing, watergaps; offchannel livestock watering 1 m fenced, 2 

gaps, 2 offchannel sites

1995 ODFW $42,185.00

980965 North Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 0.5 miles, 4.2 

ac

1998 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$3,100.00

20030845 Granite Cr dredge tail leveling 0.6 m 2003 ODFW $50,000.00

20030844 Granite Cr dredge tail leveling 0.35 m 2003 ODFW $40,000.00

1118 Fox Cr riparian fencing 0.5 m 1996 ODFW $7,000.00

1406 Pine Cr riparian tree planting 0.25 m, 1.2 ac 1997 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$350.00

1407 North Fork John Day 

R 

riparian tree planting 0.25 m 1996 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$150.00

1408 Cottonwood Cr riparian tree planting 0.13 m 1997 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$200.00

1409 North Fork John Day 

R 

bank stabilization 0.5 m 1997 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$7,800.00

980008 North Fork John Day 

R 

fish passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with 

permanent pumping station 

1 1998 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$21,770.00

20040711 Board Cr Upland erosion control 120 ac 2004 Monument 

SWCD 

$9,734.00

20030943 Portugese Canyon Upland juniper 150 ac 2003 Monument 

SWCD 

$6,790.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-25

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

20040713 Pine Cr Upland juniper 60 ac 2005 Monument 

SWCD 

$5,945.00

980966 North Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 0.125 1998 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$1,000.00

980967 North Fork John Day 

R 

instream habitat enhancement: weirs 4 structures 1998 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$8,900.00

980968 North Fork John Day 

R 

fish passage improvements: push-up 

dam removed, replaced with 

permanent pumping station 

1 dam 1998 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$21,770.00

20030944 Kingsely Cr Riparian and upland 0.5 m rip fence, 

40 ac upland 

fenced, 19 ac 

treated

2003 Monument 

SWCD 

$8,586.00

20030945 Upper Wilson Cr riparian fencing 2.08 m 2003 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$15,600.00

990721 Fox Cr anchored structures; riparian fencing, 

watergaps 

0.3 m fenced, 2 

water gaps 

1995 ODFW $9,628.00

20040710 Wall Cr Upland erosion, off-channel watering 

site 

37 ac, 1 2004 Monument 

SWCD 

$10,466.00

20010906 North Fork John Day 

R 

fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam removed, replaced with 

permanent pumping station 

1 2000 North Fork John 

Day Watershed 

Council 

$32,000.00

20030942 Alkali Cr Off-channel watering sites 4 2003 Monument 

SWCD 

$9,818.00

20040836 North Fork John Day 

R 

Riparian fencing 0.25 m 1998 ODFW $860.00

20001158 Granite Cr riparian tree planting, riparian habitat 

enhancement: dredge pile leveling, 

floodplain restoration 

1.8 m fenced, 

12 ac planted

2000 ODFW $179,754.00

20050658 Snipe Cr Riparian fencing 0.25 m 2005 Umatilla SWCD $5,248.00

20010895 Fox Cr riparian fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering 

1.1 m, 1 site 1999 ODFW $10,000.00

20010896 North Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering 

0.5 m, 1 site 1999 ODFW $3,000.00

20010899 North Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 1m 2000 ODFW $5,000.00

20040940 Cottonwood Cr Riparian fencing 0.8 m 2004 Grant SWCD $7,788.00

20040939 Cottonwood Cr riparian fencing 0.26 m 2005 ODFW $70,000.00

20020584 Granite Cr dredge pile leveling 2002 ODFW $52,614.00

Fox Cr Watershed Improvement-Riparian 

Planting 

4 miles of 

stream

2002 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$10,020.00

Auger Creek Ingram Meadows structure repair, 

riparian planting and riparian fencing 

6 miles 2000 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$55,425.00

Granite and Clear 

Creeks 

floodplain dredge tailings 

redistribution 

3.3 miles 2000 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$100,000.00

SF Desolation Creek riparian conifer planting for fire 

recovery-Summit Fire 

1 mile 2000 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$14,000.00

Granite and Clear 

Creeks 

floodplain dredge tailings 

redistribution and riparian planting 

3 miles 2001 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$134,500.00

Clear Cr floodplain dredge tailings 

redistribution 

1 mile 2002 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$56,600.00

Clear Cr riparian planting and tubing 2 miles 2003 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$13,500.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-26

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

NF Cable Cr riparian planting-Tower fire recovery 1 mile 2003 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$600.00

NF Cable Cr riparian planting-Tower fire recovery 2 miles 2004 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$3,520.00

NF Cable Cr riparian planting-Tower fire recovery 1 mile 2005 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$13,900.00

Lightning Cr fish passage improvement 1 mile 2006 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$83,000.00

Lightning Cr riparian planting-Tower fire recovery 3 miles 2006 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$8,400.00

Clear Cr floodplain dredge tailings 

redistribution 

.4 miles 2006 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$256,300.00

Smith Cr Riparian corridor fencing .4 miles 2000 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$6,320.00

Smith Cr Riparian corridor fencing .6 miles 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$9,920.00

Smith Cr Riparian corridor fencing .5 miles 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$7,600.00

Park Cr Riparian corridor fencing .3 miles 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$2,080.00

Camp Cr Riparian corridor fencing 5.4 miles 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$43,200.00

Dry Camas Cr Riparian corridor fencing 1 mile 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$16,000.00

Bear Wallow Riparian corridor fencing 1 mile 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$16,000.00

Owens Cr Riparian corridor fencing .5 miles 2000 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$8,000.00

Texas Bar Cr Riparian corridor fencing 1.3 miles 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$10,200.00

Lane Cr Riparian corridor fencing 3.5 miles 2001 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$28,000.00

Kelsay Cr Riparian corridor fencing .6 miles 2003 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$9,600.00

W.F. Meadowbrook 

Cr 

Riparian corridor fencing .5 miles 2002 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$8,640.00

Smith Cr Riparian corridor fencing .6 miles 2002 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$8,960.00

S. F. Big Wall fish passage improvement 3 miles 1995 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$1,000.00

Keating Cr fish passage improvement 5 miles 1995 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$2,000.00

E. F. Keating Creek Channel restoration .1 miles 1996 USFS 

\Umatilla NF 

$4,500.00

Ditch Creek Riparian planting 4 miles 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$4,000.00

Wilson Creek Riparian planting 5 miles 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$3,000.00

Indian Creek large wood placement 4 miles 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$8,600.00

SF Big Wall Creek fish passage improvement 4 miles 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$2,000.00

Oriental Creek Oriental basin road obliteration 5.5 miles 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$16,500.00

Texas Bar Creek Texas Bar basin road obliteration 4.2 miles 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$12,600.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-27

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

Wilson Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 6.5 1996 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$52,000.00

Bull Wilson Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 3 2003 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$48,000.00

Wall Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 4.5 2003 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$36,000.00

Colvin Creek - 

electric 

riparian corridor and pasture fencing 1 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$800.00

Skookum Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 2 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$28,000.00

Skookum Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 4.5 2002 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$36,000.00

Little Wall Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 2 2004 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$28,000.00

Bacon Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 2.75 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$22,000.00

Little Wall Creek - 

electric 

riparian corridor and pasture fencing 1.5 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$1,500.00

Three Trough Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 1 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$750.00

Indian Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 0.5 1996 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$4,000.00

Indian Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 2 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$16,000.00

Indian Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 5.8 2004 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$46,400.00

SF Big Wall Creek riparian corridor and pasture fencing 3 1999-2000 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$42,000.00

Dark Canyon riparian corridor and pasture fencing 1.5 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$12,000.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Riparian Reforestation - conifers 22 acres 1995 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$11,000.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Riparian Reforestation - conifers 21 acres 1996 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$10,500.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Riparian Reforestation - conifers 23 acres 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$11,500.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Riparian Reforestation - conifers 60 acres 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$30,000.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Riparian Reforestation - conifers and 

hardwoods 

54 acres 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$32,400.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Riparian Reforestation - conifers and 

hardwoods 

93 acres 2000 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$55,800.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Aspen Restoration 10 acres 1995 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$50,000.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Aspen Restoration 20 acres 1996 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$100,000.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Aspen Restoration 10 acres 1997 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$55,000.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Aspen Restoration 12 acres 1998 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$66,000.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Aspen Restoration 10 acres 1999 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$60,000.00

NFJD River multiple 

streams 

Aspen Restoration 10 acres 2000 USFS 

Umatilla NF 

$60,000.00

N. Fk. John Day Buckaroo Flats riparian fencing 1 mile 2006 BLM $11,000.00

N. Fk. John Day Wild and Scenic River Management Camas Creek 2001 BLM Unknown
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-28

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

Plan changed season of use for 

grazing allotments to protect riparian 

conditions 

to headwaters

South Fork John Day Population

20040814 South Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 0.33 m 1997 ODFW $3,300.00

981088 South Fork John Day 

R 

weirs, deflectors, streambank 

stabilization; off-channel livestock 

watering, stream crossings for cattle 

3 crossings, 

2 off-channel 

sites, 

15 deflectors, 

8 weirs

1999 Grant SWCD $122,838.00

20040667 Rosebud Cr riparian fencing, off channel 

watering, upland fencing 

16 m rip fence, 

2 sites, 10,032 

ft upland fence

2004 Grant SWCD $34,044.00

20040835 South Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 6.1 m 2001 ODFW $1,250.00

20001166 South Fork John Day 

R 

fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed 1 1999 Grant SWCD $29,620.00

20050672 Upland vegetation management 3,711 ac 

weeds, 2,943 

ac juniper

2005 Grant SWCD $411,072.00

20050660 Bear Cr Fish passage 1 culvert 2005 Grant SWCD $19,337.00

20040817 South Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 0.33 m 1997 ODFW $3,332.00

20010900 South Fork 

Murderers Cr 

riparian fencing 1m 1999 ODFW $10,000.00

20020595 South Fork John Day 

R 

fish passage improvements: 1 pushup dam permanently removed and 

replaced with 1 permanent lay-flat 

stachion diversion structure 

1 2000 Grant SWCD $36,169.00

20010904 South Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 1m 2001 ODFW $5,657.00

20001159 South Fork John Day 

R 

bank stabilization with juniper riprap; 

riparian tree planting; fish passage 

improvements: 1 fish ladder installed, 

1 push-up dam permanently 

removed, 1 fish screen installed on 

irrigation diversions 

0.66 m juniper 

riprap, 1 dam, 

3.5 ac planted

2000 Grant SWCD $114,944.00

1174 South Fork John Day 

R 

riparian tree planting 5 m, 24 ac 1997 Upper South 

Fork John Day 

Watershed 

Council 

$6,082.00

20040832 South Fork John Day 

R 

riparian fencing 0.5 m 1998 ODFW $2,800.00

Murderers Cr Road Reconstruction and resurfacing 

(included 8 culvert upgrades and 

streambank bioengineering) 

3.1 miles of 

stream

2001 USFS 

Malheur NF 

$92,779.00

NF Cable Creek riparian planting-Tower fire recovery 1 mile 2003 Umatilla NF $600.00

riparian planting-Tower fire recovery 2 miles 2004 Umatilla NF $3,520.00

riparian planting-Tower fire recovery 1 mile 2005 Umatilla NF $13,900.00

Lightning fish passage improvement 1 mile 2006 Umatilla NF $83,000.00

riparian planting-Tower fire recovery 3 miles 2006 Umatilla NF $8,400.00

Clear Creek floodplain dredge tailings 

redistribution 

.4 miles 2006 Umatilla NF $256,300.00

S. Fk. John Day South Fork road repair to reduce 

erosion 

.75 mile in two 

segments

2005 BLM $144,000.00

Indian Creek Riparian fence 3 miles 2000 BLM $6,000.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-29

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

Soda Creek Riparian fence 2 miles 2006 BLM $8,000.00

S. Fk. John Day Wild and Scenic River Management 

Plan changed season of use for 

grazing allotments to protect riparian 

conditions 

Smokey Ck. to 

Malheur NF 

boundary 

2001 BLM Unknown

Umatilla River Population

20030716 Iskuulpa Cr (Squaw 

Cr) 

Instream, riparian, road, upland 

(grazing, fencing, off-channel 

watering) 

66 structures, 

151 logs, 0.3 m

rip planting, 

25 off-channel 

sites, 20,000 ac 

exclusive, 

11,612 ac 

rotation

2003 Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian 

Reservation 

$462,094.00

20030901 Little Butter Cr Off-channel watering site 2 sites 2003 Morrow SWCD $19,502.00

20050604 Meacham Cr Upland vegetation management 3 ac 2004 Umatilla SWCD $1,433.00

20050603 South Patawa Upland vegetation management 45 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $16,011.00

20030899 Off-channel 1 site 2003 Morrow SWCD $10,861.00

20020641 Sandhollow Cr off-channel livestock watering 2 sites 2002 Morrow SWCD $4,946.00

20030742 Upland irrigation improvement 31 ac 2003 Hermiston 

Irrigation District 

$6,170.00

20030903 Upland sprinklers 41 ac 2003 Morrow SWCD $72,210.00

20030905 Stewart Cr Fish passage 2 culverts 2003 ODOT $300,000.00

20001200 Butter Cr riparian fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering 

0.63 m fenced, 

1 site

1999 Umatilla SWCD $9,823.00

20050602 Butter Cr Upland vegetation management 22 ac 2004 Umatilla SWCD $7,853.00

20001168 Little Butter Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored structures 

0.25 m 1999 Morrow County 

Public Works 

$37,785.00

20050606 Camas Cr Upland vegetation management 6 ac 2003 Umatilla SWCD $2,273.00

20020633 Butter Cr riparian fencing; off-channel livestock 

watering 

3.64 m, 20 sites 2002 Umatilla County 

SWCD 

$122,069.00

20050718 Off-channel watering sites 3 2005 Morrow SWCD $5,921.00

20050719 Off-channel watering site 1 2005 Morrow SWCD $7,350.00

20030906 Stanfield Canal Upland fenced, improved 20 ac 2003 Umatilla SWCD $9,765.00

20030967 Webb Slough Riparian fenced, off-channel 0.45 m, 2 sites 2003 Umatilla SWCD $34,886.00

990730 Butter Cr bank stabilization 0.06 m 1999 Umatilla SWCD $6,535.00

20050617 Birch Cr, Bear Cr, 

West Birch Cr 

Upland vegetation management 72 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $36,822.00

20050616 Upper Butter Cr 107 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $24,211.00

20050615 Stage Gulch 20 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $218,917.00

990733 erosion control: grass seeding 23,650 ac 

treated

1999 Umatilla SWCD $216,785.00

990732 Butter Cr livestock exclusion, livestock grazing 

management plan 

5,808 ft fence 1999 Umatilla SWCD $5,016.00

990731 Butter Cr bank stabilization 0.01 m 1999 Umatilla SWCD $4,544.00

990729 Westgate Canyon Cr weirs, cross berm creation; riparian 

tree planting 

10 weirs, 1.7 m 

riparian 

planting, 1 m 

treated

1999 ODFW $57,878.00

990728 Birch Cr anchored structures, weirs, 

deflectors, channel alteration, cross 

berm creation; riparian tree planting, 

riparian fencing 

105 anchors, 1 

weir, 17 

deflectors, 0.66 

m fenced, 

1,675 ft 

channel, 2.77m 

1999 ODFW $208,329.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-30

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

riparian plant 

990727 East Birch Cr anchored structures, weirs, 

deflectors, off-channel habitat (pond 

created), channel alteration, 

streambank stabilization, cross berm 

creation; riparian tree planting, 

riparian fencing 

105 anchors, 

10 weir, 39 

deflectors, 1 

pond, 12 ac 

treated, 1 m 

fenced, 7.5 ac 

riparian plant

1999 ODFW $219,832.00

990726 Umatilla R anchored structures, deflectors, bank 

stabilization; riparian tree planting, 

bio-engineering 

52 anchors, 10 

deflectors, 0.07 

m stabilized, 

0.38 m riparian 

plant, 2 ac 

treated

1998 ODFW $122,144.00

20040735 Butter Cr Upland fencing, off-channel watering 

site 

7,497 m, 12 

sites

2004 Umatilla SWCD $112,507.00

20020709 Umatilla R off-channel livestock watering 1 2003 Morrow SWCD $11,071.00

20050607 McKay Cr Upland vegetation management 22 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $1,863.00

20050611 South Patawa Upland vegetation management 3 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $2,033.00

20040734 Butter Cr Riparian fence, upland fence, ofchannel watering site 0.19 m riparian, 

21,650 ft 

upland, 12 sites

2004 Umatilla SWCD $46,990.00

20050608 Twomile Cr Upland vegetation management 2 ac 2003 Umatilla SWCD $1,284.00

20050609 Rail Cr Upland vegetation management 59 ac 2003 Umatilla SWCD $16,773.00

20050610 Butcher Cr Upland vegetation management 60 ac 2003 Umatilla SWCD $15,531.00

Little McKay Fish habitat restoration 2 mi 2000-2003 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$200,000.00

Culverts replaced for flow and fish 

passage 

4 2005-2006 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$320,000.00

McKay Creek RHCA vegetation restoration along 

dispersed camping areas 

4 mi 2005-2006 USFS 

Ochoco NF 

$30,000.00

Walla Walla River Population (Oregon)

20030800 Richartz Irrigation 

Ditch 

Upland vegetation management 918 ac 2003 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$370,205.00

20011007 Walla Walla R Riparian tree planting 1 m, 15 ac 2001 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$0.00

20050711 Walla Walla R Upland irrigation 205 ac 2005 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$1,723,311.

00

20011006 Walla Walla R fish passage improvements: 1 fish 

ladder installed 

1 2001 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$5,264,000.

00

1127 Couse Cr instream habitat enhancement: 

anchored log structures, deflectors; 

riparian planting & fencing; upland 

weed control 

0.4 m fenced, 

10.7 ac treated, 

4 deflectors, 

3 anchors 

1997 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$17,540.00

20030795 Walla Walla R Upland 80 ac 2003 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$3,848.00

20030796 Walla Walla R Fish passage push-up dam, irrigation 

diversion, upland 

1 dam, 1 

diversion, 446 

2002 Walla Walla 

Basin 

$810,789.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-31

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

ac upland Watershed 

Council 

20011005 Walla Walla R Instream water rights; irrigation 

systems for improved water 

conservation: sprinkler irrigation, 1 

pond for storage, piping of delivery 

ditch 

90 ac improved 2001 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$68,007.00

20030798 South Fork Walla 

Walla 

Upland 24 ac 2003 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$50,966.00

20050618 Big Rayborn Canyon Upland vegetation management 14 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $5,816.00

991007 Cottonwood Cr & 

Little Meadows Cr 

Surface drainage improvements, 

fence construction, rolling dip 

construction 

8 culverts, 5 

structures, 45 

structures, 180 

stations

1999 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$143,028.00

20050614 Pine Cr Upland vegetation management 21 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $6,747.00

20030801 Powell Ditch Upland vegetation management 17 ac 2003 Walla Walla 

River Irrigation 

District 

$8,069.00

20040807 Hodgson, Rayborn & 

Dry Creek Canyons 

Upland erosion control 4 ponds 2004 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$54,287.00

20011004 North Fork Walla 

Walla R, South Fork 

Walla Walla R 

Instream water rights; irrigation 

systems for improved water 

conservation; fish passage 

improvements: 3 push-up dams 

removed, replaced with 1 headgate, 

1 consolidated w/other ditch, 

1abandoned, 5 fish screens installed

572 ac 2001 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$58,818.00

20050671 Rayborn Canyon Upland vegetation management 7 ac 2005 Umatilla SWCD $5,408.00

20030797 Walla Walla R Fish passage, push-up dam, 

instream, upland 

1 dam 1 ac 2003 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$9,610.00

20050600 Rayborn Canyon Upland vegetation management 12 ac 2004 Umatilla SWCD $5,795.00

20030974 Ford Branch, Little 

Walla Walla R 

Upland irrigation 18 ac 2003 Davis Orchards $10,248.00

20050612 Couse Cr Upland vegetation management 29 ac 2004 Umatilla SWCD $10,553.00

20030794 Ford Branch Upland 2003 Lefore Fruit 

Farms, Inc. 

$7,207.00

20050601 Hay Cr Upland vegetation management 31 ac 2004 Umatilla SWCD $11,873.00

20050713 Little Walla Walla R Upland irrigation improvement 9.7 ac 2005 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$12,674.00

20040733 Spring Cr Upland fence 10 ac 2004 Umatilla SWCD $5,489.00

20001194 various peak flow passage improvements, 

surface drainage improvements, road 

vacated, road closure, road grass 

seeded 

2 structures, 4 

corss-drains, 

80 stations

2000 ODF $57,294.00

20050709 North & South Forks 

of Walla Walla R 

Upland vegetation management 140 ac 2005 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$10,584.00

20020831 Walla Walla R irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

Water storage 

reservoir

2002 Walla Walla 

Basin 

$19,260.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-32

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

Watershed 

Council 

20050605 Pine Cr Upland vegetation management 31 ac 2004 Umatilla SWCD $9,374.00

20020632 Huffman Irrigation 

Ditch 

irrigation systems for improved water 

conservation 

475 ac 2002 Walla Walla 

Basin 

Watershed 

Council 

$137,966.00

991048 Couse Cr instream water rights 

transfers/leases 

1997 Oregon Water 

Trust 

$21,318.00

S. Fk. Walla Walla Moved campsites and traffic away 

from river and bridge replacement 

0.5 miles 1998 BLM $250,000.00

N. Fk. Walla Walla Riparian exclosure fence 0.5 miles 2005 BLM $5,000.00 

SF Walla Walla Push-up dam to be converted to 

pump 

1 2003 OWEB $4,000.00

SF Walla Walla Push-up dam conversion to rock weir 1 2003 CRITFC, OWEB $16,000.00

SF Walla Walla Diversion and push-up dam not 

utilized/easement pending 

1 2000 OWEB $4,000.00

NF Walla Walla Diversion modified to eliminate need 

for push-up dam 

1 2001 OWEB $700.00

NF Walla Walla Eliminated push-up dam by 

consolidating to NF-8 

1 2001 OWEB $5,100.00

NF Walla Walla Push-up dam conversion to rock weir 1 2003 CRITFC 

OWEB 

$12,000.00

$2,000.00

Couse Cr Instream lease of water (pump 

inactive) 

1998 OWEB 

OR Water Trust 

$36,780.00

$39,125.00

Mainstem: MiltonFreewater to 

headwaters 

Lockable headgate and watermeasuring device 16 sites 2002 OWEB $32,000.00

Mainstem: MiltonFreewater to state 

line 

Little Walla Walla push-up dam 

replaced with dam and fishway 

1 2000 BPA 

Smith Ditch Ditch users have been consolidated 

to other sources 

2002 OWEB 

OWEB pending 

Landowners 

$15,000.00

$2,700.00

$15,000.00

Nursery pump Push-up diversion dam eliminated 

through consolidation to Eastside 

Diversion 

1 2002 OWEB $11,500.00

Nursery Bridge 

Fishway 

Fishway installed to allow passage 

past grade control structure 

1 2001 BPA/COE ~$5,000.00

Mainstem: MiltonFreewater to state 

line RM 42.5-44 

Ditch piping, farm efficiency upgrades 1.5 miles 2000-2003 Landowners 

BPA 

OWEB 

WW River ID 

Hudson Bay ID 

OR Water Trust 

$234,000.00

$478,000.00

$533,000.00

$46,000.00

$249,000.00

Mainstem Walla 

Walla R., Mill Cr, NF 

WW R., SF WW R. 

Ditch diversion, fish screen 

placement 

29 diversions ODFW, OWEB, 

BPA 

Nursery Bridge Fish screen placement 2000 ODFW Mitchell 

Act/ BPA 

$80,000.00

NF Walla Walla R., 

SF Walla Walla R. 

Fish screen placement 5 sites 2001 OWEB $175,000.00

Fish screen placement (includes 

portables on the Smith ditch) 

19 sites ODFW Mitchell 

Act 

$198,374.00

Mill Cr (city screen) Fish screen placement 1 2001 OWEB 

City of Walla 

Walla 

$75,000.00

$135,000.00
Appendix C 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

C-33

Habitat Restoration Projects in Oregon Mid-Columbia steelhead population areas from 1995 through 2005 (OWEB 2006) 

OWEB 

Project 

Number 

Stream Name Project Description Quantity Year Project Leader Total Cost 

BPA $210,000.00

Walla Walla Marie Dorian Dam removal 1 1997 CTUIR 

Walla Walla Little Walla Walla passage/screens 1 2000 CTUIR $1,000,000 

Mill Creek City of Walla Walla Intake Screens 1 2001 ODFW $420,000.00

North Fork, South 

Fork, mainstem 

Walla Walla 

gravity ditch diversions screened 22 2000 ODFW $246,058.00

Walla Walla River Eastside Ditch Screen 1 2001 ODFW $80,000.00

Walla Walla River Riparian Easement 1500 feet 2003 CTUIR 

South Fk Walla 

Walla River 

Riparian Easement 3200 feet 2003 CTUIR 

Walla Walla 

Subbasin 

Upland Restoration 7737 acres 1998-2003 NRCS 

Walla Walla River Annual in-stream water lease 7.9 cfs 2003-2005 OR Water Trust 

Couse Creek Upland restoration and riparian fence 1.2 miles 2000 CTUIR 

Walla Walla River river flow restored in summer 25 cfs 2001-2005 USFWS 

Walla Walla River Riparian Easement 1900 feet 2001 CTUIR 

Walla Walla 

Subbasin 

CRP 18225 1998-2003 NRCS 

Walla Walla 

Subbasin 

CCRP 247 1998-2003 NRCS 

South Fork Walla 

Walla River 

Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern – protected management 

1280 acres 

along 2.376 

stream miles

1995-2005 BLM 

South Fork Walla 

Walla River 

Protected management, no roads, no 

logging 

13708 acres 1995-2005 USFS 

Mill Creek Protected management, no roads, no 

logging in municipal watershed 

5000 acres 1995-2005 USFS 

Walla Walla 

Subbasin 

Direct seeding sediment reduction on 

steep slope wheat farms 

2812 acres 1998-2003 NRCS 

Couse Creek Riparian fence 1.3 miles 1997 CTUIR 

Pine Creek Riparian fence 1.5 miles 1999 SWCD 

Dry Creek Riparian Fence .3 miles 1998 WWBWC 
Appendix D 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

D-1

APPENDIX D 

Hydropower Configuration and Operational Improvements 

Implemented in Recent Years that Provide Survival Benefits to 

Oregon’s Mid-C Steelhead Populations

 

and 

Estuary Improvements 

Implemented in Recent Years that Provide Survival Benefits to 

Oregon’s Mid-C Steelhead Populations
Appendix D 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

D-2

Hydropower Configuration and Operational Improvements Implemented in Recent Years 

that Provide Survival Benefits to Oregon’s Mid-C Steelhead Populations: 

• Bonneville Powerhouse I (PH1) minimum-gap turbine runner (MGR) installations 

• Bonneville PH1 juvenile bypass system (JBS) screen removal 

• Bonneville PH2 corner collector installation 

• Bonneville PH2 fish guidance efficiency (FGE) improvements 

• Bonneville PH2 operation as first priority 

• Bonneville spill operation improvements including five additional flow deflectors 

• The Dalles spill wall construction 

• The Dalles spill pattern improvements 

• The Dalles sluiceway operation improvements 

• The Dalles adult collection channel improvements 

• John Day spill operation improvements 

• John Day South Fish Ladder improvements 

• McNary spill operation improvements 

• McNary end spillbay deflectors and hoists 

• McNary full flow juvenile passive integrated transponder (PIT)-tag detections 

• McNary juvenile transport facility bypass piping improvements 

• McNary spare extended-length submerged base screen 

• McNary improved juvenile bypass dewatering screens 

• McNary adult PIT-tag detection in fish ladders 

• McNary overhauling auxiliary water supply (AWS) pumps 

• McNary upgrading of adult fish ladders tilting weir controls 

Estuary Improvements Implemented in Recent Years that Provide Survival Benefits to 

Oregon’s Mid-C Steelhead Populations: 

• Replaced three culverts with full-spanning bridges 

• Provided approximately 10 miles of improved tidal channel connectivity by 

 installing a tide gate retrofit 

• Acquired approximately 473 acres of off-channel and riparian habitats 

• Restored and created 90 acres of marsh and tidal sloughs and approximately 

 100 acres of riparian forests 

• Protected approximately 55 acres of high quality riparian and floodplain habitat 

• Restored and preserved approximately 154 acres of off-channel habitat 

• Protected 80 acres of high-value off-channel forested wetland habitat 

• Restored approximately 96 acres of tidal wetlands habitat by replacing undersized 

 culvert that limited fish access 

• Conserved 155 acres of forested riparian and upland habitat 

• Provided partial tidal channel reconnection by tide gate retrofit (acreage unknown 

 at this time) 

• Provided integrated pest management (purple loosestrife) 

• Reconnected and restored 183 acres of historical floodplain by dike removal 

• Restored 25 acres of historical floodplain by breaching a dike 
Appendix E 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

E-1

APPENDIX E 

U.S. Forest Service 

Bureau of Land Management 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Programs in Support of 

Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery

Sufficiency Assessment
Appendix E 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

E-2

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Programs in Support of 

Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery

Sufficiency Assessment

May, 2007 

Executive Summary 

The Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have in place a Management 

and Conservation Framework that is comprised of programs that contribute to recovery of ESAlisted salmon and steelhead on federal lands, these include: 

1. A diverse body of environmental laws and regulations 

2. Agency policies 

3. Land Management Plans with associated aquatic strategies, and 

4. Guidance and procedures for project design, implementation, and monitoring 

Collectively, this existing Management and Conservation Framework represents the “baseline”

that governs land management, contributing to both short and long-term recovery goals for ESAlisted salmon and steelhead on federal lands. While elements of the framework may be revised or 

amended over time, the interwoven nature of statutes, regulations and policies, as well as 

interagency and public processes, maintains the integrity and overall effectiveness of the 

framework in providing meaningful contributions to salmon and steelhead recovery. 

The foundation of the Management and Conservation Framework are two aquatic strategies 

known as (PACFISH and the Northwest Forest Plan – Aquatic Conservation Strategy (NWFPACS). PACFISH was incorporated into FS and BLM Land Management Plans in 1995 and the 

NWFP ACS amended Forest Service plans on the east slope of the Cascade mountain range in 

1994. These aquatic strategies provide for the long-term protection and appropriate management 

of physical or biological features essential to recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead on 

federal lands. 
Appendix E 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

E-3

Forest Service and BLM Aquatic & Riparian Habitat Management and Conservation 

Framework 

Introduction 

The Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have in place a Management 

and Conservation Framework that is comprised of programs that contribute to recovery of ESAlisted steelhead on federal lands. These include: 

1. A diverse body of environmental laws and regulations; for example, the Clean Water and 

Endangered Species Acts; 

2. Agency policies 

3. Land Management Plans with associated aquatic strategies, and 

4. Guidance and procedures for project design, implementation, and monitoring 

Collectively, this existing Management and Conservation Framework represents the “baseline”

that governs land management, contributing to both short and long-term recovery goals for ESAlisted steelhead on federal lands. While elements of the framework may be revised or amended 

over time (e.g., Congress may pass new statutes, agencies may revise plans, etc.), the interwoven 

nature of statutes, regulations, and policies – as well as interagency and public processes –

maintains the integrity and overall effectiveness of the framework in providing meaningful 

contributions to salmon and steelhead recovery. 

The following describes the primary building blocks in the Management and Conservation 

Framework the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) apply to federallymanaged lands within the Pacific Northwest (States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) that 

contribute to salmon and steelhead recovery goals and objectives, and guide recovery actions: 

Land Management Plans 

FS and BLM Land Management Plans contribute to recovery by providing assurances that 

public lands are managed in accordance with Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)/(FLPMA), the National Forest Management Act/(NFMA) of 1986, and 

other applicable laws, regulations and policy. These legal and policy requirements ensure the 

federal land managing agencies make informed decisions and provide for the responsible 

management of public land resources, including ESA-listed species. 

Both FS and BLM Land Management Plans describe broad, multiple-use guidance for managing 

public lands and mineral estates. Plan decisions are made at a broad scale and guide site-specific 

project design and approval. Land Management Plans highlight goals and objectives for 

resource management and establish management guidance needed to achieve them. Plans also 

identify what public and commercial uses are appropriate and where they should occur. Land 

Management Plans contain protective management direction, in some cases even stronger than 

PACFISH or the NWFP-ACS. Applicable to specific large blocks of land, these additional 

protections include; Congressionally designated Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

municipal watersheds. In addition, some types of management areas also receive strong 

watershed-scale protections based on land use decisions contained in land management plans. 

Examples include; allocations and management direction for non-motorized dispersed recreation 

areas, and Scenic Areas. All Land Management Plans are developed with public involvement, 
Appendix E 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

E-4

and impacts of a plan are analyzed in an appropriate NEPA document. Plans also contain a 

monitoring component to provide continuous feedback on the efficacy of direction in meeting 

{plan} objectives. 

Within the range of Columbia and Snake River basins, the FS and BLM rely on these two 

aquatic strategies, PACFISH and the NW Forest Plan – ACS, to ensure that actions on federal 

lands prevent further degradation and begin to restore high quality in-stream and riparian habitat 

conditions in support recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Current FS and BLM Land 

Management Plans west of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington were amended by the 

NWFS EIS Record of Decision (ROD) in 1994, amended in 2003. East of the Cascades (eastern 

OR/WA, ID) were amended by a PACFISH Decision Notice in 1995 

PACFISH and the NWFP-ACS are described individually in more detail below: 

PACFISH

(Aquatic Strategy for Managing National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management 

Anadromous Fish Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and portions of 

northern California)

In February, 1995, Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administrative 

units with anadromous fish, outside the range of the northern spotted owl covered by the 

Northwest Forest Plan – Aquatic Conservation Strategy (NWFP-ACS) in Oregon, modified their 

Land Management Plans through amendment by PACFISH. PACFISH was developed as an 

ecosystem-based, interim strategy designed to arrest the degradation of habitat and begin 

restoration of in-stream and riparian habitats on lands administered by the FS and BLM in 

eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of northern California. The intent of the 

strategy was to allow for ‘passive’ restoration of the ecological health and productivity of 

watersheds that contain present or potential anadromous fish habitat through the application of 

riparian standards and guidelines to both proposed and ongoing actions. PACFISH was to 

remain in place until longer term aquatic conservation strategies, similar to the NWFP-ACS were 

completed through Land Management Plan amendment or revisions (PACFISH Environmental 

Assessment, 1994). Those revisions have not yet occurred, and PACFISH still applies wherever 

NWFP-ACS does not already apply. 

PACFISH contains the following components that are applied to FS and BLM management 

actions to maintain and restore ecological processes that support high quality habitat for salmon 

and steelhead: 

• Riparian Goals – establishes an expectation of the characteristics of healthy, functioning 

watershed, riparian areas, and associated fish habitats; 

• Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs)- quantitative RMOs for stream channel, 

riparian and watershed conditions were developed to provide the criteria against 

which attainment or progress toward attainment of the riparian goals are measured. 

RMOs provide measurable targets toward which managers are aiming as they 

conduct resource management activities across the landscape. The objectives are 

time specific to reflect the ecological capabilities of specific ecosystems; 
Appendix E 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

E-5

• Delineation of streamside areas (Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, aka “RHCA”s) 

that are important to maintenance of high quality aquatic habitat and where special 

management considerations are applied - PACFISH requires that proposed actions 

within RHCAs do not prevent or retard attainment of RMOs. RHCAs include 

traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that 

help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems by (1) influencing the delivery of 

coarse sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams, (2) providing root 

strength for channel stability, (3) shading the stream, and (4) protecting water 

quality;. RHCA widths vary depending upon the aquatic and riparian resources to be 

protected in each stream reach, based on stream and riparian characteristics.

• Standards and/or guidelines to ensure to the extent legally possible, that projects do not 

prevent or retard attainment of riparian goals and management objectives; 

• Designation of Key or Priority watersheds - areas where additional management 

emphasis and/or watershed analysis is required to ensure that salmon and steelhead 

habitat is maintained or provided priority for restoration; 

• Watershed analyses - to provide sufficient context for designing actions that support 

maintenance or restoration of aquatic habitats needed for recovery of ESA-listed 

salmon and steelhead ; 

• Watershed restoration efforts focused through watershed analysis; 

• Monitoring program to evaluate project implementation (compliance) and effectiveness 

of PACFISH as a strategy for protecting and improving aquatic habitat conditions on 

federal lands. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/research/techtrans/projects/pacfish_home.shtml

PACFISH, combined with underlying Land Management Plans and BLM Rangeland Health 

Standards, and complemented by consultation programs conducted for compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act, provides the program guidance needed to protect and conserve 

steelhead and their habitat on federal lands. The protective guidance provided by these programs 

is applied on every FS and BLM project during project development and implementation. They 

have been determined to be sufficient in terms of their intended purpose of protecting habitat for 

ESA-listed salmon and steelhead to the extent permitted by law, thereby promoting recovery of 

the species and their habitats. 

PACFISH provides a framework for minimizing adverse effects from land management 

activities on aquatic resources through the assessment of proposed or ongoing management 

actions, within RHCAs, with Riparian Goals and Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs). 

Standards and Guidelines are applied to actions within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

(RHCAs) to ensure that they do not prevent or retard attainment of high quality aquatic habitat 

(RMOs). The use of Watershed Analysis and special considerations provided in KEY watersheds 

(priority populations) provide another level of management consideration that increases certainty 

of outcomes for protection and meeting of both short and long-term recovery goals. 

Preliminary results from broad-scale aquatic habitat status and trend monitoring of FS and BLM 

lands within the interior Columbia River basin since 2001 indicates conditions have improved 

over the past 5 years, continuing the habitat recovery presumed to have begun in 1995 as a result 

of the protections PACFISH instituted. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring will both 
Appendix E 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

E-6

continue to evaluate the overall long-term effectiveness of PACFISH policy and program 

directives at preventing further degradation of habitat for native anadromous and resident 

salmonids, and its effectiveness at restoring near-natural rates of habitat and species recovery on 

actively managed FS and BLM lands, particularly within streamside riparian areas on streams 

affected by ongoing livestock grazing. 

Northwest Forest Plan’s 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Protective Land Allocations

In Oregon and Washington 

The Northwest Forest Plan ACS (NWFP-ACS) was designed to incorporate all elements of an 

aquatic and riparian ecosystem necessary to maintain its natural disturbance regime. The 

NWFP-ACS applies to all FS and BLM lands within western WA, OR, and the east face of the 

Cascades in WA. 

Aquatic ecosystem elements embedded in the NWFP-ACS include; maintenance of hydrologic 

function, high water quality, adequate amounts of coarse woody debris, complex stream channels 

that provide a diversity of aquatic habitat types, and riparian areas with suitable microclimate 

and vegetation. These elements directly or indirectly correspond to each of the physical and 

biological attributes of ‘Primary Constituent Elements’ identified as characterizing salmon and 

steelhead designated critical habitat: water quality and quantity; substrates; shade; large wood; 

cover; conditions suitable for forage production; channel form and connectivity with floodplains; 

and, unobstructed migration corridors. Since being amended to FS Land Management Plans in 

the eastern Cascades in 1994, the NWFP-ACS has created a connected system of aquatic and 

riparian habitats throughout the plan area that are assumed to be reversing the trend of aquatic 

and riparian habitat degradation and begun the long recovery process for these habitats over the 

past 12 years. 

Most primary program components of the NWFP-ACS are similar to those found in PACFISH. 

NWFP-ACS components include: 

• Aquatic Goals and Objectives - each project must maintain or restore the physical and 

biological processes required by riparian dependent-resources at the watershed scale or 

broader to comply with the ACS

• Riparian Reserves - portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive 

primary emphasis. The extensive Riparian Reserves within the Northwest Forest Plan 

area protect the stream and adjacent riparian areas critical to maintaining a highly 

functioning aquatic ecosystem,

• Standards and Guidelines – Standards and Guidelines prohibit and regulate activities in 

Riparian Reserves that retard or prevent attainment of the ACS aquatic/riparian 

objectives. Use of these provides assurances that a project cannot have a negative 

impact in the long- term on riparian-dependent resources or ecological processes in the 

Riparian Reserves at the watershed scale. 

• Key Watershed network -serves as refugia for anadromous salmonids, 

• Watershed analyses - to provide sufficient context for designing actions that support 

maintenance or restoration of aquatic habitats needed for recovery of ESA-listed salmon 

and steelhead ; 
Appendix E 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

E-7

• Watershed Restoration Strategy-a formal restoration strategy based on watershed 

analysis.

• Monitoring-a formal long-term broad-scale monitoring program

• Adaptive Management-ongoing adjustments in management based on monitoring and 

other new information as it becomes available.

Riparian Reserves 

The NWFP-ACS provides the foundation for the conservation and recovery of anadromous fish 

species on federally-managed lands through use of Riparian Reserves. Riparian Reserves are 

portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. In 

conjunction with the Key Watershed network, these areas serve as refugia for ESA-listed and 

non-listed anadromous fish. 

Land Allocations 

The NWFP-ACS, with additional protective land allocations, collectively provides an extensive 

network of Riparian Reserves and watersheds contributing to the protection and restoration of 

aquatic ecosystems on federally-managed lands. 

Large proportions of federal lands within the NWFP area in Oregon are in some form of Reserve

or Special Management status. Reserve or Special Management status lands are those where 

land management actions are largely prohibited or significantly shaped by application of 

protective Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for land management activities. These speciallymanaged lands are located both within and outside Key Watersheds. Federal lands outside of 

Key Watersheds are also protected under other land allocations including; Riparian Reserves, 

Congressional Reserves such as Wild and Scenic River corridors, Wilderness and/or Municipal 

Watersheds; spotted owl Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) and Areas Withdrawn from active 

management (Forest Service) through Forest Plans. 

NWFP-ACS Standards and Guidelines are also required to be applied within LSRs, providing 

increased protection for all stream types. As LSRs have late-successional characteristics, and are 

overlain with Riparian Reserves, they serve as core areas of high quality stream habitat, fish 

refugia, and centers from which degraded aquatic systems can be recolonized once they are 

restored. Streams within these reserves may also be particularly important for endemic or locally 

distributed fish species and stocks. Collectively, these protective upland land allocations (nonRiparian Reserve; not located in Key Watersheds) comprise 1,331,636 acres or 17 percent of 

federally-managed lands within the area of designated critical habitat for anadromous fish in 

Oregon and Washington. 

Watershed Analysis and Watershed Restoration 

Watershed analysis, a requirement of the NWFP-ACS, provides an understanding of aquatic 

habitat conditions and processes. This informs land management decisions regarding the timing, 

location, and magnitude of activities on the landscape to protect and/or restore the physical and 

biological features essential to the conservation of anadromous fish. Watershed analysis also 

provides information on priorities for watershed restoration. The FS has made significant 

investments in watershed restoration in the NWFP area since its inception in 1994. Activities 

have emphasized; restoration of fish passage, reductions in the delivery of fine sediments to 
Appendix E 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

E-8

stream channels, placement of large wood debris in stream channels, riparian plantings and 

thinning to accelerate large wood recruitment/increase shade/improve nutrient cycling, and have 

included control of noxious weeds, and obliteration or high-level maintenance of as risks to 

meeting aquatic habitat objectives 

Monitoring 

The NWFP-ACS also contains a long-term monitoring component to evaluate progress towards 

goals for protection and management of physical and biological features essential to long-term 

conservation of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. In the NWFP ACS, monitoring is considered 

an essential component of management as the information it provides helps to evaluate the 

overall success of the applied strategies and allows for needed adjustments. Four types of 

monitoring are conducted by the FS: 

• Implementation monitoring - to determine if activities (i.e., timber sales, silvicultural 

projects, watershed restoration, etc.) were implemented as planned and whether or not 

they meet NWFP-ACS Standards and Guidelines. 

• Effectiveness monitoring - evaluate if NWFP-ACS Standards and Guidelines are meeting 

the strategy’s goals and objectives. www.reo.gov/monitoring/watershed. 

• Validation monitoring is primarily research-oriented and directed at testing underlying 

assumptions upon which management strategies are based. 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/10yr-report/documents/synthesis-reports/all.pdf., 

http://ocid.nacse.org/nbii/density/pubs.html, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/index.shtml

• Local - In addition, many of the local FS and BLM administrative units conduct annual 

monitoring (implementation, effectiveness) to address local management issues. 

Adaptive Management 

Adaptive Management is described in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994a) as a 

continuing process of action-based planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating and adjusting 

with the objective of improving the implementation and achieving the goals of the standards and 

guidelines. Using this process, new information is evaluated and then serves as the basis for 

decisions on needed adjustments to management. Adjustments may also result in the refinement 

of standards and guidelines, land-use allocations, or amendments to FS and BLM Land 

Management Plans. 

Collectively, these NWFP-ACS program components emphasize aquatic habitat management for 

protection and recovery ESA-listed anadromous salmonid ESUs on NFS and BLM lands. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-1

APPENDIX F 

State of Oregon Programmatic Review

Statewide Habitat Programs Implemented by Oregon State Agencies 

to Address Limiting Factors and Threats to the Recovery 

of Listed Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-2

Statewide Habitat Programs Implemented by Oregon State Agencies 

to Address Limiting Factors and Threats to the Recovery of Listed Anadromous Salmon 

and Steelhead 

Table of Contents Page

Executive Summary.................................................................................. 2 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 

Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................... 4 

Program Review Process........................................................................................................ 8 

Results..............................................................................................................................................9 

Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................... 10 

Appendix 1. Program Descriptions....................................................................................... 11 

Appendix 2. Program Strategies and Land Use Jurisdictions.................................................. 22 

Appendix 3. Program Sufficiencies to Address Fine Sediment Impacts .................................. 25 

Appendix 4. Program Sufficiencies to Address Habitat Complexity Impacts........................... 32 

Appendix 5. Program Sufficiencies to Address Water Temperature Impacts. .......................... 37 

Appendix 6. Program Sufficiencies to Address Fish Passage Impacts..................................... 43 

Appendix 7. Program Sufficiencies to Address Instream Flow Impacts................................... 47 

Appendix 8. Program Sufficiencies to Address Agriculture and Forestry Chemical Impacts..... 51 

Appendix 9. Program Sufficiencies to Address Animal Waste Impacts................................... 53 

Appendix 10. Program Sufficiencies to Address Human, Urban, or Industrial Waste Impacts. . 54 

Appendix 11. Addition Program Documentation................................................................... 55 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-3

Executive Summary 

Natural resource agencies within the State of Oregon conducted an internal review of their 

habitat-based programs to assess sufficiency in addressing threats, and associated limiting 

factors, to the recovery of listed anadromous salmonids in Oregon. This assessment is a 

component of Oregon’s recovery planning effort, specifically in guiding development of basin 

actions for specific populations. The process builds on the foundation of the Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds wherein the collective and coordinated actions of natural resource 

agencies synergistically care for Oregon’s watersheds and salmon. 

Sufficiency of statewide programs was based on technical, institutional, budgetary, 

implementation, and documentation criteria, and categorized according to certainty, or lack 

thereof, of sufficiency in addressing limiting factors. Program jurisdiction on federal, state, and 

private forests, agricultural lands, and urban/rural residential lands was also identified. Factors 

limiting to salmonid viability were characterized as habitat access, food web dynamics, physical 

habitat quality and quantity, water quality, and water quantity and flow timing. Eight 

management strategies were identified for addressing limiting factors and threats related to 

freshwater habitat conditions. 

(Note: final sufficiency analysis is ongoing and incomplete). 

Key constraints to program effectiveness included inadequate outreach and education, 

monitoring, technical assistance, prioritization, and program oversight, all of which are a result 

of inadequate funding and staff resources. Monitoring of program actions on the ground was 

identified as being crucial to providing rigor and necessary documentation of program 

effectiveness and sufficiency. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-4

Introduction 

Oregon is in the process of developing recovery plans for salmon and steelhead populations in 

the state that are listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). One step in the development of these recovery plans is consideration of the ability of 

existing regulatory, management, or incentive-based programs to address the habitat factors that 

have historically limited, or are currently limiting, the salmon and steelhead populations in 

Oregon. This document provides information about limiting factors and critical “bottlenecks”, 

and evaluates the likely influence the agency programs will have on addressing limiting factors 

and bottlenecks for improving habitat and population trends. 

While completion of this document is not a federal ESA requirement, its contents will be 

included in recovery plans being developed across the state, and will serve as a resource for the 

planning teams tasked with developing specific action plans for each of the salmon and steelhead 

recovery planning domains in Oregon. 

 

State regulatory and management mechanisms are important tools to preventing the continued 

decline of habitats and promoting their protection and restoration to create healthy watersheds 

for fish. Thus, in evaluating the various regulatory programs, the process considers the degree to 

which practices that were historically adverse have been stopped, the impact of the current 

standard to improve conditions over time, and the adequacy of companion non-regulatory 

programs to timely restore desired conditions. This process will also serve as a baseline from 

which improvement can be measured toward reducing threats that initially contributed to a 

listing decision. The listing (and delisting) decision includes as one criteria (among several) the 

“inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms” that threaten the continued existence of a 

species. 

This process builds on the regulatory, incentive-based and management foundation established 

prior to and for the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, wherein the collective and 

coordinated actions of natural resource agencies work to synergistically care for Oregon’s 

watersheds and salmon. While agency programs in large part were not intended to achieve 

habitat conditions that foster recovery, they were intended to improve watershed conditions in 

general for salmon. 

Conceptual Framework 

Limiting factors are the physical, biological, or chemical conditions and associated ecological 

processes and interactions (e.g., population size, habitat connectivity, water quality, water 

quantity, streambank sloughing etc.) experienced by the fish that may influence viable salmonid 

population (VSP) parameters (i.e. abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). 

There are five broad categories of habitat limiting factors: 

Water quantity/hydrograph –Magnitude and timing of flows. 

Water quality – Water characteristics including temperature, dissolved oxygen, suspended 

sediment, pH, toxics, etc. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-5

Physical 

Habitat Quality 

and Quantity 

Food Web 

Water 

Quality 

Water Quantity/ 

Hydrograph 

Habitat Access 

Food Web – The complex of interrelated food chains that ultimately feed salmon and 

steelhead. 

Physical habitat quality/quantity – The amount and characteristics of physical habitat such 

as amount of large wood in the stream channel, occurrence of deep pools, and silt free 

spawning gravel. 

Habitat access – Impaired access to spawning and/or rearing habitat. 

As illustrated in Figure 1, many interrelations exist between the limiting factor categories. For 

example, a water quantity/hydrograph limitation can influence habitat access (dewatered stream 

channels), water quality (less dilution of pollutants), physical habitat quality (changing macro 

and micro habitat conditions), and food web (altering nutrient retention rates). 

Threats are the human actions (e.g., fishing, operation of hatcheries, operation of the hydro 

system, road building, riparian habitat degradation, channel straightening, etc.) or natural 

occurrences (e.g., flood, drought, volcano, tsunami, etc.) that cause or contribute-to limiting 

factors and site-specific “bottlenecks”. 

Management strategies describe how recovery goals will be achieved by stating the general 

approaches that set the path from current conditions to the desired future state. Management 

strategies guide the creation of management actions, which are specific activities or behaviors 

intended to address the bottleneck to help achieve one or more recovery goals.

Figure 1. Interrelation between limiting factor categories. 

Recovery planners have identified eight management strategies that are needed to address 

limiting factors (or bottlenecks) and threats related to freshwater habitat conditions. Table 1 

shows these management strategies and the limiting factor categories they address as well as 

examples of threats that can lead to the limiting factor becoming a concern. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-6

Although the management strategies provide a useful general approach and framework for 

recovery efforts, they do not necessarily provide the detail needed to assess if specific key 

limiting factors are adequately addressed by existing management programs. This review focuses 

on the adequacy of State of Oregon programs to impact the following specific key limiting 

factors common to all recovery planning domains in Oregon: 

• Excessive fine sediment in spawning gravel 

• Low habitat complexity 

• High water temperature 

• Impaired passage 

• Inadequate stream flows or altered timing of flows 

• Agricultural and forestry chemicals 

• Animal waste 

• Human, urban, or industrial waste 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-7

Table 1. Relationship between limiting factors, specific threats and management strategies addressed by 

statewide programs. 

Management Strategies 

Limiting Factors 

Addressed Examples of Threats Addressed 

1 - Protect and conserve ecological processes 

that support the viability of populations and their 

life history strategies throughout their life cycle. 

All habitat limiting 

factors See individual limiting factors. 

2 – Restore and maintain floodplain connectivity 

and function 

Habitat access, Food 

web, & Physical 

habitat quality 

Stream straightening, channelization and diking, 

wetland draining and filling, dams that limit sediment 

movement 

Riparian habitat use and degradation, introduction of 

non-native plants that alter riparian function. 

Urban, residential or commercial development 

Stream cleaning and splash damming. 

3 - Restore riparian condition and LWD 

recruitment, and maintain conditions adequate to 

support natural stream function and processes 

Water Quality, Food 

web, & Physical 

habitat quality 

Fine sediment from roads and other upland 

disturbances. 

4 – Restore and maintain passage and 

connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by 

artificial barriers 

Habitat access Dams, culberts, tidegates, road crossings, and hatchery 

weirs. 

Municipal and irrigation water withdrawals 

Urban, residential or commercial development 

5 - Restore stream flows and natural hydrograph Hydropower and flood control dams 

to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Water 

quantity/hydrograph 

& Habitat Access Riparian habitat use and degradation, introduction of 

non-native plants that alter riparian and upland 

functions. 

Riparian use and degradation, and introduction of non6 - Restore and maintain channel structure and native plants that alter riparian and upland functions. 

complexity. 

Physical habitat 

quality & Food web Stream cleaning, splash damming, straightening, 

channelization, and diking. 

Municipal and irrigation water withdrawals 

Hydropower and flood control dams 

Agricultural, municipal, and industrial effluent and 

toxins. 

Fine sediment from roads, agricultural practices, 

development. 

7 - Improve degraded water quality and maintain 

unimpaired water quality Water quality 

Riparian habitat use and degradation, introduction of 

non-native plants that alter riparian and upland 

functions. 

Fine sediment from roads, agricultural practices, 

development. 

Urban, residential, or commercial development 

8 - Restore degraded upland processes to limit 

potential adverse impacts of uncharacteristic 

erosion and runoff, and maintain healthy upland 

processes. 

Water & Physical 

habitat quality 

Riparian habitat use and degradation, introduction of 

non-native plants that alter upland functions. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-8

Program Review Process 

Program managers from each natural resource agency were asked to provide information on 

statewide programs currently implemented by their agencies that address the key limiting factors 

described earlier. Four categories of information regarding these programs were requested: 

1) A general description of the program, including documentation of the program’s guidance, 

jurisdiction, and implementation timeline. Appendix Table 1 lists this information for each 

program evaluated. 

2) A list of the management strategies addressed by the program and the land use for which the 

program is intended. Appendix Table 2 lists this information for each program evaluated. 

3) An evaluation of the program (“sufficiency”) in the context of the key limiting factors 

(ongoing), the rationale for the sufficiency characterization, recommendations for 

modification to the program to improve its sufficiency, and constraints on the program that 

may hamper its ability to fully address the key limiting factor. Varying levels of 

documentation is also provided that supports or addresses “sufficient” or “likely to be 

sufficient” assessments. Table 2 shows the criteria used to assess the programs. Appendices 

Tables 3-10 show this information by key limiting factor for each program. 

4) A list of references that provide more detailed information about the program (see Appendix 

11). 

Table 2. Criteria used to determine sufficiency of programs to address key habitat limiting factors to the 

recovery of Oregon salmon and steelhead populations. 

Sufficiency 

Designation Criteria for Designation 

Yes 

Adequate technical, institutional, and budgetary capacity to implement the program, has 

a clear timeline for implementation, and documentation that the program can significantly 

reduce the limiting factor/threat within the program’s jurisdictional area. 

Likely 

Adequate technical, institutional, and budgetary capacity to implement the program, has 

a clear timeline for implementation, and documentation that the program can significantly 

reduce the limiting factor/threat within the programs jurisdictional area, but it is a 

relatively new program with limited documentation on program effectiveness. 

Uncertain 

Adequate technical, institutional, and budgetary capacity to implement the program 

within its jurisdictional area, but the program lacks an adequate monitoring program, or 

has no clear timeline for implementation. 

No Inadequate technical, institutional, or budgetary capacity to implement the program within 

its jurisdictional area. 

Program managers were asked to focus their efforts on “programs” that implement conservation, 

protection, or restoration actions. Programs whose sole function is monitoring the status and/or 

trend in natural resources are not included in this review. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-9

Results 

A total of 36 programs within nine natural resource agencies were evaluated (Table 3; Appendix 

Tables 1, 3-10). ODEQ had the most programs (7) addressing the most limiting factors (6), while 

ODLCD and ODOT had the fewest programs (1) addressing from 1-3 limiting factors. 

Note: Sufficiency analysis is ongoing, therefore final results are not adequately complete for 

presentation in this report. Refer to Appendices for descriptive analysis of programs. 

Agencies identified the need for adequate and dependable funding and increased staff resources 

to improve program sufficiency, especially those programs characterized as uncertain or 

insufficient. These limitations hamper or preclude sufficient outreach and education to 

landowners, effectiveness and compliance monitoring, technical assistance, program 

development, implementation, and oversight, and necessary inventories. Monitoring of program 

action effectiveness is crucial to understanding and acknowledging program sufficiency, and to 

adjusting program elements for improved adequacy. Trend monitoring is especially important to 

delineating progress or problems over time. 

Jurisdictional limitations, overly broad statutory directives, increasing costs, and reliance on 

other state and local authorities for implementation constrain effectiveness of some programs. In 

addition, coordination and collaboration, both internally among state agencies and externally 

with federal land managers and private land owners, remains an important need to more fully 

address landscape issues. Some voluntary programs also conflict with landowner values and 

priorities, necessitating highly favorable incentives to overcome these social hurdles to effect 

positive change. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-10

Conclusions and Recommendations

This review was conducted prior to specific benchmarks being established for recovery goals or 

an analysis of the predicted benefits of specific actions currently undertaken by each program, 

and programs combined. Nonetheless, using the detailed information provided in the 

Appendices on program objectives, jurisdiction, guidance, timelines, modifications and 

constraints should provide useful information for individual planning teams for each recovery 

domain as they formulate specific action plans for each ESA-listed salmon and steelhead 

population. This information will likely be helpful in the future as the state strives to improve its 

effectiveness in addressing habitat limiting factors. 

Note: Sufficiency analysis of programs is incomplete. 

Monitoring is especially critical to improving accountability, increasing knowledge of action 

effectiveness, and strengthening rigor in future assessments. An appropriate evaluation of a 

program’s sufficiency requires field monitoring and documentation to assess whether program 

implementation on the ground is having the desired effect in addressing threats and limiting 

factors. For many programs, monitoring is absent or limited, tempering the ability to adequately 

evaluate its effectiveness. A number of program evaluations were based on the sufficiency and 

soundness of the infrastructure or process for implementing the program or an accounting of 

activities. To adequately assess action effectiveness and program sufficiency, actual monitoring 

and measurement of habitat conditions and trends must take place. 

Continued emphasis on agency collaboration and coordination will strengthen the Oregon Plan 

foundation to better meet recovery needs now and into the future. The integrated workings and 

commitments of multitude agencies are needed to provide greater and more durable benefits to 

Oregon’s salmon, watersheds, and citizens. Unfortunately, the relative contribution of these 

programs, in the context of overall importance to the landscape, was not assessed. Also not 

assessed was the cumulative and synergistic contribution of various programs to achieve overall 

habitat protection goals. This is an important consideration as no one program was intended to 

address any one limiting factor completely. It is possible that individual programs by themselves 

are not adequate to address specific threats and limiting factors for meeting recovery goals, but 

the combined suite of available state agency programs in aggregate may create an adequate 

overall program for the state regarding a specific limiting factor. 

The collective efforts of state habitat programs has made comparative progress in improving 

trends over the past ten or more years, due in part to the Oregon Plan. The services these 

programs provide to the public and the regulatory oversight afforded are essential to maintaining 

a balance in protecting Oregon’s natural resources within the context of resource use and 

development. However, improving landscape function to achieve recovery will require a 

concerted and conscious effort by many, including Oregon’s natural resource agencies. Future 

funding packages to support and bolster programs to facilitate effectiveness would enhance this 

state’s efforts toward recovery. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-11

Appendix Table 1. Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategies in tributa

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODA Agricultural Water 

Quality Management (SB 1010) 

In 1993 the legislature established the Agricultural Water Quality Management Act. In 1995, the legislature supplemented the Act with ORS 561.191. This statute reinforces ODA’s responsibility for and jurisdiction over agricultural practices and water pollution associated with activities on agricultural and rural lands. Administrative rules adopted to guide Program administration are found in OAR Chapter 603, Divisions 90 and 95. Regulatory actions address violations when they arise. Monitoring tools include DEQ ambient monitoring sites, local monitoring programs such as Rogue Valley Council of Government’s Bear Creek monitoring and ODA Riparian Conditional Analysis for agricultural lands. 

Ag Water Quality Mgmt 

Act 

All agricultural practices and wpollution associated with activitagricultural and rural lands, excluding federal or tribal trust 

ODA Confined Animal 

Feeding Operation (CAFO) 

Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) program protects water quality by preventing animal wastes from discharging into waters of the state. ODA’s CAFO program provides a means for the state to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. Operators know what is expected of them and are visited by ODA inspectors on an annual basis to insure compliance. 

ORS 468B0.50 and 468B.0125 

All permitted and non-permitted Confined Animal Feeding Operations. 

ODA Pesticides The ODA Pesticide Division regulates pesticide applicators, labeling, and 

regulates misuse. 

Oregon State Pesticide Control Act, ORS 634, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

All pesticide use throughout the state (commercial and private) 

ODA Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts 

SWCDs identify and address natural resource concerns within their respective boundaries and work w/ local, state, federal and private interests to deliver conservation services. 

Oregon’s 45 SWCDs are organized under ORS Chapter 568 and are governed by an elected board of directors who serve without pay. 

All lands within district boundar

ODA Weed Control and 

Invasive Species 

The Noxious Weed Control Program provides leadership and technical expertise for weed control programs throughout the state. ODA also tracks invasive exotic plants, insects and animals through a number of detection programs including reporting from citizens and other agencies. 

The Oregon Invasive Species Council, which was created by the legislature, was initiated in 2002 with functions identified by ORS 561.685. 

Non-regulatory program – weecontrol statewide (Federal, StaPublic and Private lands) 

ODEQ 401 Dredge & Fill 

Certifications 

Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act requires that an applicant for a federal permit, to conduct an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the State, must provide the permitting agency with a State water quality certification. A water quality certification is the mechanism by which the State evaluates whether an activity will meet water quality standards. Certifications may be denied, approved or approved with conditions, which if met, will ensure that water quality standards are met. 

Federal Clean Water Act; ORS 468B.035 & .047; OAR 340-048 

All waters of the State 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-12

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategie

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODEQ 401 

Hydroelectric Recertification 

Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act requires that an applicant for a federal permit, to conduct an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the State, must provide the permitting agency with a State water quality certification. A water quality certification is the mechanism by which the State evaluates whether an activity will meet water quality standards. Certifications may be denied, approved or approved with conditions, which if met, will ensure that water quality standards are met. 

Federal Clean Water Act; ORS 468B.035 & 040 - .047; OAR 340-048 

All waters of of the State 

ODEQ Environmental 

Clean Ups 

DEQ's Environmental Cleanup Program protects human health and the environment by identifying, investigating, and remediating sites contaminated with hazardous substances. The Cleanup Programs objective is to guide all sites to No-Further-Action (NFA) determinations as quickly and inexpensively as possible. DEQ has issued over 1,000 NFAs since 1994, some of which include institutional or engineering controls to manage site risks. 

Various Federal Laws; ORS465; OAR 340-122 

All waters of of the State 

ODEQ Non-Point 

Source Program 

DEQ requires Designated Management Agencies to develop Non Point Source Implementation Plan for sub basins that have TMDLs. Additionally, DEQ works in cooperation with other state, federal and local agencies to enhance their programs to address elements of non point source pollution and administers grants and loans to implement on-the-ground projects. 

Federal Clean Water Act; ORS 468B.035 

All waters of of the State 

ODEQ Point Source 

Permits 

DEQ issues water quality permits to protect surface and ground waters of the state. These permits regulate sewage and industrial wastewater discharges from industrial and municipal sources. 

Federal Clean Water Act; ORS 468B.035, 030 & 050; OAR 340-045. 

All waters of of the State 

ODEQ Storm Water 

Permits 

DEQ issues water quality permits to protect surface and ground waters of the state. Stormwater permits are required for and regulate storm water discharges to surface waters from: Construction activities (that disturb greater than 1 acre); industrial activities (subject to federal permitting requirements determined by SIC codes listed in the federal regulations); and municipalities (covered under Phase 1 (populations over 100,000) and Phase 2 (populations over 50,000) permitting requirements). 

Federal Clean Water Act; ORS 468B.035, 030 & 050; OAR 340-045. 

All waters of of the State 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-13

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategi

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODEQ Water Quality 

Standards 

DEQ develops numeric and narrative water quality standards to protect for the most sensitive beneficial uses of the waters of the state – typically for protection of fish and other aquatic life and human health. As required under the Clean Water Act, these standards are to be reviewed every three years to insure that they are scientifically up-to-date. 

Federal Clean Water Act; ORS 468B.035 & 048; OAR 340-041-0001 to 340-041-0350 

All waters of of the State 

ODF Fire Program The Fire Program of the Oregon Department of Forestry provides effective 

protection from fire for forest resources including water and watersheds, fisheries, wildlife, soil productivity and soil stability. National Fire Plan activities target fuel reduction and stand management that contribute to stands that are more fire resilient and benefit all forest resources. The Fire Program also educates forest landowners and forest homeowners about the value off fire hazard and risk reduction measures and takes positive action to minimize threats. 

ORS Chapter 527, 526 Private forestlands, BLM lan

Westside. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-14

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategi

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODF Oregon Forest 

Practices Act 

The FPA encourages economically efficient forest practices that ensure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species and the maintenance of forestland for such purposes as the leading use on privately owned land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, fish and wildlife resources. The FPA regulates road construction and road maintenance. Road construction must allow the migration of adult and juvenile fish upstream and downstream during conditions when fish movement in that stream normally occurs. For roads constructed after 1994, the forest practices act requires fish passage to be maintained. For all other roads the FPA encourages this standard. For roads constructed prior to 1994, other statutes apply that are outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry. The water protection rules protect, maintain and, where appropriate, improve the functions and values of streams, lakes, wetlands, and riparian management areas. These functions and values include water quality, hydrologic functions, the growing and harvesting of trees, and fish and wildlife resources. Temperature is primarily addressed in the water protection rules that include general vegetation retention prescriptions for streams, lakes and wetlands. Requirements for vegetation along fish bearing streams varies by stream size and geographic region, however along all fish bearing streams, trees within 20 feet, vegetation within 10 feet, and trees leaning over the channel are required to be retained. Retention requirements beyond this vary. With regards to habitat complexity and off-channel habitat availability, the FPA regulates slash treatment, reforestation, chemical applications, road construction, harvesting, and hauling. Statutes and administrative rules vary for each practice, Each is designed to protect function and value of these resources. Requirements vary by stream size and geographic region, however along all fish bearing streams, trees within 20 feet, vegetation within 10 feet, and trees leaning over the channel are required to be retained. Retention requirements beyond this vary. These rules take a precautionary, passive approach by protecting the existing condition. They allow restoration activities only with site specific, written plans. With regards to fine sediment, the forest practices act regulates slash treatment, road construction, harvesting, and hauling. Rules vary for each practice. Each set of rules is designed to prevent or minimize sediment or debris delivery to waters of the state and to meet clean water standards. In addition to regulations for each specific practice, riparian buffers along fish bearing streams add an additional area of filtration between operation activities and waters of the state. A staff of field foresters works with landowners and operators to assist, educate, and enforce the rules. A statewide monitoring program assesses compliance with the rules and rule effectiveness at achieving objectives. 

ORS Chapter 527, OAR Chapter 629 

Operations on or pertaining to federal forestlands regardless ozoning or taxation, with the exception of where local governments (cities) have takeresponsibility of administering regulations within Urban GrowtBoundaries that provide protecforestland resources. Jurisdictiincludes limited federal lands sas lands owned by Army Corp Engineers, Bureau of Reclamaand US Fish and Wildlife. USDForest Service and BLM lands regulated through designation those two agencies as the designated management agenunder agreement with ODEQ. Operation means any commercactivity relating to the establishmanagement or harvest of foretree species. There are certain exceptions regarding Christmatrees, trees grown as intensive agriculture crops, trees grown tmitigate the effects of agricultupractices, and where approved use conversions have commenSee OAR 629-600-0100 (47). 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-15

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategi

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODF Private forestry 

component of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

Forest Landowners contribute to the Oregon Plan by complying with Oregon’s Forest Practices Act and by accomplishing additional projects that contribute to Oregon Plan goals. Regarding fish passage, forest landowners close or rehabilitate legacy roads and update functioning roads to meet current standards, Oregon Plan measures on forestland are currently being updated to include recommendations from the work of the forest practices advisory committee and the DEQ sufficiency analysis. With regards to temperature, forest landowners manage riparian areas, leave additional conifers along streams, increase RMAs for non-fish bearing streams, and place leave trees to benefit Oregon Plan objectives. Oregon Plan measures on forestland are currently being updated to include recommendations from the work of the forest practices advisory committee and the DEQ sufficiency analysis. With regards to fine sediments, forest landowners voluntarily rehabilitate legacy roads to reduce the threat of fine sediment. This includes adding water bars, removing culverts, and pulling back perched soils on roads built prior to adoption of the FPA. Oregon Plan measures on private forestland are currently being updated to include recommendations from the work of the forest practices advisory committee and the DEQ sufficiency analysis. Regarding habitat complexity and off channel habitat availability, forest landowners place wood in streams, manage riparian areas, restore conifers in riparian management areas, and participate in habitat restoration activities. Oregon Plan measures on forestland are currently being updated to include recommendations from the work of the forest practices advisory committee and the DEQ sufficiency analysis. 

ORS Chapter 521 and OAR 629-605-0103 

Voluntary 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-16

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategi

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODF State Forest 

Program 

The State Forest Program implements actions related to roads to minimize effects upon fish passage. First, roads are built and maintained according to the standards of the Forest Roads Manual. Additionally, stream crossings are surveyed at the watershed scale to identify locations of potential effects to fish passage. (This is usually conducted through the watershed analysis process.) Based on these surveys, actions are taken to improve fish passage, where necessary. Finally, ODF conducts monitoring to ensure that actions are applied properly and to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions. The State Forest Program applies management standards for aquatic and riparian areas that include wide riparian buffers on fish bearing streams. These same standards apply to large and medium perennial streams without fish. Small perennial streams without fish also have tree retention requirements. ODF also applies additional risk-reduction strategies in Salmon Anchor Habitats (until 2011).. Finally, monitoring is conducted. ODF evaluates the effectiveness of its riparian strategies through its adaptive management program. The State Forest Program applies management standards for aquatic and riparian areas which are designed to increase the development of riparian large wood to restore aquatic habitats. These include a wider riparian management zone than specified under the FPA, with additional tree retention. Where appropriate, the FMP promotes the use of alternative vegetation treatments to accelerate the development of large wood. Active restoration is also applied to improve habitat complexity. Restoration projects include wood placement and re-routing of roads away from streams. Priority areas for restoration are generally identified through the watershed analysis process. Finally, monitoring is conducted. ODFW conducts monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration projects, while ODF evaluates the effectiveness of its riparian strategies through an adaptive management process. The State Forest Program implements actions related to roads and timber harvest to minimize the ability of sediment to reach streams. First, roads are built and maintained according to the standards of the Forest Roads Manual. Additionally, roads are surveyed at the watershed scale to identify locations of potential effects to streams. (This is usually conducted through the watershed analysis process.) Based on these surveys, actions are taken to reduce hydrologic connectivity, potential for road failure, and other potential sediment impacts. Timber harvest, likewise, is conducted to minimize sediment contributions to streams. The wide buffers specified by the Forest Management Plan prevent disturbance in the near stream area that might otherwise result in sediment delivery to streams. Finally, ODF conducts monitoring to ensure that actions are applied properly and to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions. 

ORS Chapter 527, 521, OAR 629-640-0100 & -0200 through -0440, Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan, Forest Roads Manual, ODFW rules/statutes, OWEB guidance on fish passage 

State Forest Land 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-17

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategi

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODFW Conservation 

Strategy for Oregon 

Previously called the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, the Conservation Strategy for Oregon provides a non-regulatory, statewide approach to species and habitat conservation. It synthesizes existing plans, scientific data, and local knowledge into a broad vision and conceptual framework for long-term conservation of Oregon’s native fish, wildlife and habitats. Conservation of instream and upland habitats will promote watershed health. 

USFWS and Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies guided the development and review process for the Strategy. For guidance on the implementation, see the Oregon Conservation Strategy document: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/ 

The Conservation Strategy fOregon is meant to apply to rivers, streams, and estuarieOregon. 

ODFW Fish Passage 

Program 

The owner or operator of an artificial obstruction located in waters in which native migratory fish are currently or were historically present must address fish passage requirements by gaining approval from ODFW prior to certain trigger events. Trigger events include installation, major replacement, a fundamental change in permit status (e.g., new water right, renewed hydroelectric license), or abandonment of the artificial obstruction. In addition, ODFW is working toward identification of the highest priority passage sites, at which passage can be addressed. 

Laws regarding fish passage may be found in ORS 509.580 through 910 and in OAR 635, Division 412.

Artificial obstructions located Oregon waters in which nativmigratory fish are currently ohistorically present 

ODFW Fish Screening and 

Passage Grant Program 

Oregon water users may be eligible for an ODFW cost-share incentive program and state tax credit designed to promote the installation of ODFW approved fish screening or fish passage devices. Fish screens prevent fish from entering water diversions. Fishways provide fish passage to allow migration. ODFW works with owners who apply for funding, as well as actively seeks projects at which to provide fish screening and passage. 

Laws regarding passage, screening, and cost share can be found in ORS 315.138, 496.085, 496.141, 496.303, 497.124, 498.301 through 346, 509.580 through 910, 537.141, 540.525, and in OAR 635, Division 412. 

Oregon water users includinindependent agriculture useprivate domestic users, munwater suppliers, irrigation disand commercial industries. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-18

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strateg

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODFW Lands Resources 

Program 

The Wildlife Division Land Resources Program helps guide land-use activities in Oregon that affect fish and wildlife habitats. The program offers tax incentives, grants and technical assistance to private and public landowners, businesses and governments to promote conservation of fish and wildlife habitats, and to ensure environmental protection standards are met. Programs goals promote healthy riparian and wetland corridors - decreasing bank erosion and filtering run-off. 

OAR’s for Landowner Incentive Program (LIP), Access and Habitat Program, Bird Stamp Program, and Riparian Lands Tax Incentive Program) can be found at http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_635/635_tofc.html 

All owners of private and public in Oregon interested in conservfish and wildlife habitats. 

ODFW Restoration and 

Enhancement Program 

ODFW oversees a comprehensive program to assist in enhancing natural fish production, improve hatchery programs, and provide additional public access to fishing waters. To achieve these goals, the R and E Program provides funding that directly benefits fish by addressing items such as fish passage, habitat restoration, public education, research and monitoring. 

OAR’s 635-009-0200 through -0240; Stat. Auth.: ORS 512 

All streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries in Oregon. 

ODFW Salmon Trout 

Enhancement Program 

The Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) recognizes that volunteers play an important role in the restoration of salmon, steelhead and trout. STEP (1) educates the public about Oregon’s salmon and trout resources and the habitats they depend on, (2) inventories and monitors fish populations and their habitat, (3) enhances, restores and protects habitat for native stocks of salmon, steelhead, and trout, and (4) produces fish to 

supplement natural fish production, augment fisheries, or, in the case of the classroom egg incubation program, provide educational opportunities. Habitat monitoring and enhancement function under STEP, could be used to address this limiting factor. 

OAR’s 635-009-0090 through -0150; Stat. Auth.: ORS 496 

All Oregonians that are eager tcontribute time, muscle, moneyperseverance to the restoration salmon, steelhead and trout in Oregon. 

ODFW Watershed Council 

Liaison 

The ODFW Watershed Council Liaison position provides technical support to watershed councils involved in assessing watershed conditions and conducting restoration projects designed to address watershed needs. Among those projects are actions that specifically address fish passage barriers, iparian enhancement, habitat complexity, and fine sediments in streams. 

Oregon Aquatic Habitat Restoration Guidelines. 

All watershed councils in Orego

ODLCD Statewide 

Comprehensive Land use Planning 

Oregon’s statewide comprehensive land use program requires cities and counties to plan for and manage land use in compliance with 19 statewide planning goals. Local land use plans and ordinances must identify and protect natural resources and identify and plan for hazard areas. The statewide land use program provides a framework for local governments to adopt land use plans and ordinances and approve development that are salmon-friendly. 

(ORS 197, )RS 195, ORS 215, ORS 227) 

City and county land use plans ordinances. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-19

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategi

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

ODOT SalmonFish 

Passage Program 

Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Salmon-Fish Passage Program originated in 1997 through the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon Plan). This program, initiated by Governor Kitzhaber and authorized by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC), defined ODOT’s Oregon Plan contributions. The OTC invested $12 million Immediate Opportunity Funds prior to the 2000-2003 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) to replace and retrofit high priority fish passage culverts owned and managed by ODOT. ODOT’s Salmon-Fish Passage program funding levels continue to be approved by the OTC (FY 2008 through FY 2011 are $ 3.7, $ 3.9, $4.1, and $4.2 million respectively). ODOT’s Salmon-Fish Passage Program has invested approximately $30 million into culvert improvements and provided access to nearly 370 miles of stream habitat once blocked to native migratory fish. These capital investment improvements, at culverts identified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) as high priority fish passage locations, are critical elements of ODOT’s Oregon Plan contributions. These projects promote the recovery and sustainability of threatened and endangered native migratory fish in Oregon. The goal of this program is to continue to support the Oregon Plan and to repair (replace or retrofit) priority fish passage culverts in the most aggressive, cost effective, and efficient means as practicable with limited program funds. 

ORS 509-580 through 910, OAR Chapter 635-412-0010 through OAR 635-412-0040, Executive Order (EO) 99-01, and ODOT’s Mission Statement 

ODOT’s Salmon-Fish Passage Program addresses fish passaneeds at priority hydraulic facillocated within ODOT rights of wThese rights of way bisect muljurisdictions and land use. 

ODSL Voluntary 

Restoration Initiative 

Under DSL’s new Voluntary Restoration Initiative, two Wetland Restoration Specialists are working with landowners and organizations interested in restoring wetlands. Primary objectives are to provide technical assistance on restoration site assessment, permitting and monitoring, facilitate restoration of historical wetland types (emphasis on rare and at-risk habitats), and accurately track/report quality/ quantity of projects 

ORS Chapter 196.600-692; OAR 141-085-0240 -0257 and 0610-1660 

Wetlands that meet the three wetland indicators described in Corps of Engineers’ 1987 WetlManual. 

ODSL RemovalFill 

Program 

Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law requires people who plan to remove or fill material in waters of the state to obtain a permit from the Department of State Lands. Proposed permanent impacts to instream and off-channel habitat, as well as to wetlands, are required to be offset with compensatory mitigation actions such as riparian planting, large wood placement, or wetland restoration. All permits issued by DSL include conditions that require protection of fish habitat and water quality, including in-water timing restrictions, turbidity monitoring and sediment and erosion control requirements, and riparian vegetation removal restrictions and revegetation requirements. By offering streamlined General Authorizations for projects with minimal impacts (i.e. bioengineering methods and planting instead of riprap), the permit process encourages applicants to design projects with minimized impacts to water resources. The Department recently implemented a pilot program for an expedited permitting process for fish habitat enhancement activities including placement of large woody debris and boulders. 

ORS Chapter 196.795 - 990 and ORS Chapter 390.835; OAR 141-085-0005 - 0165. 

Waterways to the ordinary high water mark and wetlands that mthe three wetland indicators described in the Corps of Engin1987 Wetlands Manual. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-20

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategi

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

OWEB CREP Program OWEB is the state cost share partner for the Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP) that pays for riparian restoration and provides a 10-15 year conservation rental for maintenance of the plantings. The program has enrolled nearly 2,000 miles of stream since 1999. 

ORS 541.351 - 541.420 and OAR 695-001-0000 through 695-050-0050 

Agricultural lands 

OWEB Grant Program OWEB’s grant program supports voluntary efforts by Oregonians seeking to 

maintain and restore native fish and healthy watersheds. OWEB funds projects that restore, maintain, and enhance the state's watersheds, supports the capacity of local watershed-based citizen groups to carry out a variety of restoration projects, promotes citizen understanding of watershed needs and restoration ideas, provides technical skills to citizens working to restore urban and rural watersheds, and monitors the effectiveness of investments in watershed restoration. OWEB regular grants are awarded every 6 months for restoration and protection of ecological resources. Grant applications are reviewed by a regional multidisciplinary team to develop recommendations and prioritization of grant applications for OWEB consideration. The review teams evaluate whether the grant applications address limiting factors and the technical soundness of the proposals. 

ORS 541.351 - 541.420 and OAR 695-001-0000 through 695-050-0050 

All lands 

OWRD Administration of 

Water Rights 

Surface waters in many areas of the state are fully allocated during critical flow periods for fish. However, there are several aspects of the review process for new water right applications that are protective of fish and fish habitat. All new groundwater permits are evaluated to determine the potential to cause substantial interference with surface flows. Surface water availability is modeled monthly and includes existing instream water rights. Applications to appropriate surface waters are evaluated at the 80% exceedance level. Permits are subject to public interest review standards that include interagency consultation on potential impacts of further appropriation to fish and fish habitat. All new water right applications are subject to review through an interagency review and consultation process. Permits, if approved, may be conditioned to address impacts on listed species identified through the consultation process. 

OAR 690-009, 033, 051, 310 

With few exceptions, all surface ground waters of the state 

OWRD Enclosed 

Livestock Water Delivery Systems 

Livestock owners with legal access to use surface waters are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit or certificate to divert water to a trough or tank through an enclosed water delivery system meeting minimum requirements. OWRD Watermasters provide technical support to interested landowners. 

ORS 537.141 Water rights appurtenant to 

agricultural lands. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-21

Appendix Table 1 (continued). Description of statewide programs currently implemented by the State of Oregon that support habitat management strategi

Agency Program Description Guidance Jurisdiction 

OWRD Flow Restoration 

Programs 

ODFW and OWRD have identified priority watersheds where flow restoration will produce the most benefit for listed species. OWRD staff work with water rights holders to restore streamflows through voluntary flow restoration measures. Voluntary measures include instream leases, instream transfers, allocations of water conserved through improved efficiencies, and changes to existing rights including consolidation or transfers of points of diversion. In certain circumstances, reclaimed water from certain municipal, industrial and confined animal feeding operations may provide an effective alternative to new diversions of surface water or ground water. 

OAR 690-018, 077, 380 

All interested water right holde

OWRD Lease/Transfer 

Water Rights Associated with CREP Program 

Perfected water rights appurtenant to lands enrolled under the CREP program are not subject to forfeiture for non-use during the enrollment period. OWRD encourages CREP participants to voluntarily lease or temporarily transfer associated water rights instream while enrolled in CREP. Associated water rights leased or transferred instream can be protected instream to benefit minimum flows and listed species. 

ORS 537.348, 540.610 (Revised), OAR 690-077, 380 

Water rights appurtenant to agricultural lands enrolled in C

OWRD Water Distribution 

and Regulation 

Distribution and regulation of water use for the protection of senior water rights, including instream rights, is a priority for OWRD. Staff regularly monitor streamflow, particularly on those streams with established instream rights, and work to eliminate illegal use through compliance and enforcement of Oregon water law. 

OAR 690-250, 077, ORS 540.045 

With few exceptions, all surface ground waters of the state 

OWRD Water Supply and 

Conservation Planning 

OWRD Staff work with water rights holders to address water supply through the development of water management and conservation plans. The development of these plans for new and extended municipal rights and through voluntary participation of irrigation districts must identify conservation measures that will be pursued. Municipal plans must also include five year benchmarks for implementation of conservation activities. 

OAR 690-086 (Guidance is also available through the League of Oregon Cities) 

Municipal and Agricultural wateright holders interested in prepor required to prepare, water management and conservation plans. 

OWRD Water Use 

Measurement Strategy 

Federal and state agencies, cities, counties, schools, irrigation districts and other special districts are required to report water use on an annual basis. Since 1990, many new permits have required water meters to be installed and annual reports to be submitted to the state. In addition, the Water Resource Commission considered water use measurement in 2000 and adopted a strategy for improving water measurement statewide. The strategy includes a program to inventory and complete field assessments of significant points of diversion and to look for opportunities to increase measurement at those diversions by ensuring compliance and promoting voluntary measurement via cost-share programs. Significant diversions are characterized as those required to measure through a water right condition, or those diversions without a measurement condition that are greater than 5 cfs, or greater than 10% of the lowest monthly 50% exceedance flow as defined in the water availability model, and greater than 0.25 cfs. 

OAR 690-085, ORS 537.099 and the Water Resource Commission’s Strategy for Statewide Water Measurement 

With few exceptions, all surface ground waters of the state 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-22

Appendix 2. Strategies and land uses addressed by statewide management programs. A checked box indicates th

addresses components of the management strategy or has jurisdiction over a land use. See Table 1 fmanagement strategy codes. Land use codes are: FF = Federal Forest; SF = State Forest; PF = PrivAgriculture; UR = Urban/Rural residential;

Management Strategy L

Agency Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FF SF 

ODA 

Agricultural Water Quality Management (SB 1010) √ √ √ √ √ 

ODA 

Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) √ √ 

ODA Pesticides √ √ √ ODA 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

ODA 

Weed Control and Invasive Species √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 

ODEQ 

401 Dredge & Fill Certifications √ √ √ 

ODEQ 

401 Hydroelectric Recertification √ √ √ 

ODEQ Environmental Clean Ups √ √ √ ODEQ Non-Point Source Program √ √ √ √ ODEQ Point Source Permits √ ODEQ Storm Water Permits √ √ √ √ ODEQ TMDLs √ √ √ ODEQ Water Quality Standards √ √ √ ODF Fire Program √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ODF Oregon Forest Practices Act √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-23

Appendix 2 (continued).

Management Strategy L

Agency Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FF SF 

ODF State Forest Program 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ODFW 

Conservation Strategy for Oregon 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ODFW Fish Passage Program 

√

√

√

ODFW 

Fish Screening and Passage Grant Program 

√

ODFW Lands Resources Program 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ODFW 

Restoration and Enhancement Program 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ODFW 

Salmon Trout Enhancement Program 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ODFW Watershed Council Liaison 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ODLCD 

Statewide Comprehensive Land use Planning 

√

√

√

√

√

√

ODOT 

Salmon-Fish Passage Program 

√

√

√

ODSL Removal-Fill Program 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

ODSL Voluntary Restoration Initiative 

√

√

√

√

√

OWEB CREP Program 

√

√

√

√

√

√

OWEB Grant Program 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

OWRD Administration of Water Rights 

√

√

√

√

OWRD 

Enclosed Livestock Water Delivery Systems 

√

OWRD Flow Restoration Programs 

√

√

√
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-24

Appendix 2 (continued).

Management Strategy L

Agency Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FF SF 

OWRD 

Lease/Transfer Water Rights Associated with CREP Program 

√

√

OWRD 

Water Distribution and Regulation 

√

√

√

OWRD 

Water Supply and Conservation Planning 

√

OWRD 

Water Use Measurement Strategy 

√

√

√
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-25

Appendix Table 3. Program sufficiencies to address fine sediment impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODA Agricultural 

Water Quality Management (SB 1010) 

 Basin plans and rules are reviewed biennially to determine whether 

the plan is sufficient to meet and address water quality standards, and modified as necessary to meet deficiencies and new requirements or information. Reviews include review of compliance actions, outreach activities, projects, and monitoring results. ODA focuses efforts and resources on areas of highest priority and program is enforced. “Compliance” is based on inspections prompted by “notification” of inappropriate occurrences; increasing complaints and notifications reflect an increased public awareness and greater number of basin rules in place. Water quality monitoring is conducted by DEQ at permanent sites. Aerial photography at 4-5 yr intervals documents riparian condition trends. 

Biennial reviews will determine if modifications are needed. Given more resources (funding) implementation of on-the-ground actions, including monitoring, would be accelerated. More monitoring would provide improved documentation of program adequacy. Resources are needed for site capability assessment through GIS. 

Landownoutreachnew landagriculturonly a cotechnical monitorin

ODA Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts 

 Strong local infrastructure, provides strong local involvement and 

action. Districts focus efforts and resources on areas of highest priority. An accounting of outreach activities and conservation planning and practices reported by SWCDs on an annual basis is available from ODA. 

None at this time. Given more resources (funding) implementation of on-the-ground actions would be accelerated. 

Stable an(Funding

ODA Weed 

Control and Invasive Species 

 Weed and invasive species negatively affect desired riparian 

condition and function. ODA focuses efforts and resources on areas of highest priority. This is a voluntary program and not under regulatory control 

None at this time. Given more resources (funding) implementation of on-the-ground actions would be accelerated. 

Adequate outreachdoable bechallenge 

ODEQ 401 Dredge 

& Fill Certifications 

 Limited monitoring for compliance and lack of cumulative impacts 

tracking. 

A greater number of specific types of projects will be monitored for compliance in the future. This will help in evaluating adequacy of portions of the program but additional monitoring and evaluation is needed. 

The state Fees neecover the 

ODEQ Non-Point 

Source Program 

 The program relies on existing state and local authorities to address 

non point sources of pollution. Programs to address nonpoint sources, especially in urban and agricultural areas, are relatively recent and additional time and trend monitoring is needed to document results. Additionally, while a schedule for implementation is to be identified, timing of implementation is often dependent on adequate future funding which often is not guaranteed or certain. 

Adequate monitoring program needed; see other programs listed in this document for modifications needed as it relies on other existing state and local authorities for implementation. See other programs listed in this document for Modifications Needed, 

See othedocumenother exisfor implem

ODEQ Storm Water 

Permits 

 Stormwater permitting program is: - a relatively recent program 

where programs, practices and technology are evolving (e.g. phase 2 permits are being developed by 2007) and therefore there has been limited time to monitor the effectiveness of this program; - In the case of municipal storm water, permits require implementation of best management practices to the maximum extent practicable which may not restore upland processes or may not water quality standards in some areas. 

Additional staff for technical assistance and program oversight. Additional Staffing. 

Number oFunding fee supporecently bRibbon Crecommeand addit
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-26

Appendix Table 3 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fine sediment impacts. 

Agenc

y Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODEQ TMDLs TMDLs target bringing waters back into compliance with water quality 

standards. Oregon entered into a Consent Decree and Memorandum of Agreement with USEPA in 2000 under which it committed to substantially complete TMDLs statewide by 2010 (based on number of waters listed on the 1998 303(d) list). Uncertainty is based on the fact that sedimentation is likely to underlisted and therefore only a few sedimentation TMDLs have been developed in Oregon. Additionally, DEQ has not had much experience in addressing sedimentation under the TMDL program. 

The Department is currently working on updating the turbidity standard and has identified that the sedimentation standard needs to be addressed in future triennial standards reviews. The Department is also re-examining its 303(d) listing criteria based on the current narrative standard. Subsequent sedimentation TMDLs will address these concerns. Additional Staffing. 

Sta

ODEQ Water 

Quality Standards 

 A growing backlog of standards need to be updated. At current staffing 

levels, DEQ cannot update standards on a three year cycle nor undertake complex standard development that would be needed to adequately address complex issues such as sedimentation and turbidity. Without updates, DEQ would rely on current standards or those promulgated by the USEPA. In the case of addressing sedimentation, DEQ relies on use of its current narrative standard. 

Additional staffing for this program (DEQ had a preliminary budget request in for the 2007 Legislature, but did receive the Governor’s approval). 

Nu
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-27

Appendix Table 3 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fine sediment impacts. 

Agenc

y Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODF Fire 

Program 

 Resources are needed to assist forest landowners to reduce fuels that 

place forested watersheds at risk. Infrastructure is also needed to support resource enhancement opportunities through biomass conversion projects. 

More coordinated efforts by all of Oregon’s agencies and landowners to work collaboratively with federal partners to increase the contribution for recovery from federal forests. 

Fed‘chplaunceithTheODplafedA cbetagemaresresincand perlanWilin a plahazfed
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-28

Appendix Table 3 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fine sediment impacts. 

Agenc

y Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODF Oregon 

Forest Practices Act 

 Current practices under the Act have reduced sediment inputs and will 

sustain a trend of reducing fine sediment inputs over time. Past activities that have unnecessarily contributed fine sediments have been abandoned or modified. Modifications to practices have been designed to address the key mechanisms for delivery of fine sediment from forest 

operations. Legacy issues are addressed over time through the regulatory process when culverts are replaced or roads become part of an active operation. Legacy issues are also addressed in an expedited manner through voluntary measures. Documentation Links: 

Final Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment: 

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/OregonPlan

Sufficiency Analysis: A Statewide Evaluation of Forest Practices Act Effectiveness in Protecting Water Quality, ODF and DEQ 2002. Pages 6, 7 (Wet Weather road use rules subsequently adopted.) Pgs. 6-7, 32-35, 59-61, C3-8. 

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/docs/fp/AllSAv1031.pdf

ODF BMP Compliance study 2002 pages 19-25

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/docs/fp/BMPfinalTR15.pdf

Additional monitoring: 

o Road Hazard Inventory (pdf) o FPMP Technical Report #17 (pdf) - Wet Season Road Use Monitoring 

Project: Final Report, June 2003 

o FPMP Technical Report #8 (pdf), Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Forest 

Road BMPs to Minimize Stream Sediment Impacts - Final FY 96 Report to the Oregon DEQ 

o FPMP Technical Report #9 (pdf), Forest Roads, Drainage, and Sediment 

Delivery in the Kilchis River Watershed, June 1997 

o FPMP Technical Report #10 (pdf), Forest Road Sediment and Drainage 

Monitoring Project Report for Private and State Lands in Western Oregon, February 1998 

o Storm Impacts & Landslides of 1996 : 

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/landslides.shtml

Additional resources for monitoring and program implementation would increase the certainty that the current rules are efficient and effective at delivering desired outcomes. The Board of Forestry has adopted an indicator to address road related risks. The metrics for the indicator are: 1) Percent of road system disconnected from the stream network; 2) Percent of stream crossings on fish streams providing passage; 3) Land area in non-forest condition due to roads (road subgrade plus cutslope). The desired trend is an increasing proportion of sampled Oregon forest roads are determined to pose a low risk to soil and water resources. Additional resources and interagency coordination are needed to implement this indicator. 

ResremresresForindfish necPrivcommo
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-29

Appendix Table 3 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fine sediment impacts. 

Agenc

y Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODF Private 

forestry component of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

 The trend for fine sediment regimes is clearly improving. Past practices 

that contributed fine sediments have been abandoned or modified. Existing rules regulate practices on current operations. Voluntary investments mitigate legacy sediment problems. The Oregon Plan is designed to address known sources of sediment not addressed as active operations under the Forest Practices Act. The contribution of sediment from these sources is unknown as is the total amount of work that would be needed to address these sources. Considering this uncertainty, adequacy of the program is deemed likely. Reporting and communication indicate that many landowners actively participate in the Oregon Plan and road work on roads built prior to the adoption of the Oregon forest practices act has become routine maintenance for many landowners. OWEB Watershed Restoration Inventory data indicates that landowners are actively participating in the Oregon Plan. Documentation Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Watershed Restoration Inventory

More resources to inventory roads, especially on small, non-industrial private lands, would increase our understanding of legacy roads, fine sediment and the links to listed species 

As incedumo

ODF State 

Forest Program 

 The program is built on a sound theoretical basis. Similar practices to 

those employed by ODF have been proven to reduce sediment production, transport, and delivery in other studies. While this gives reason to believe that the FMP standards are effective, the degree of effectiveness has not yet been established because monitoring is not yet complete. Documentation Because program standards meet or exceed those under the FPA, the documentation listed to support the sufficiency of the FPA will also support the sufficiency of the State Forests Program. Future monitoring reports produced by the State Forests Program will likely document any additional benefits produced by FMP strategies. 

The need for modification to the current program is uncertain, pending the results of monitoring. 

Staconproaccand impare allo

ODFW Conservati

on Strategy for Oregon 

 The Oregon Conservation Strategy is a new voluntary program. As 

such, monitoring and evaluation will be necessary to determine the effectiveness of the program. 

None at this time. The role of this new program as it pertains specfically to listed salmon and steelhead is still being defined. 

Volassimp

ODFW Lands 

Resources Program 

 Uncertain of funding status or participation by public and private entities 

(i.e. Riparian Lands Tax Incentive Program). 

Need further promotion of existing programs by I and E, Wildlife Division, and District staff. 

Fun
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-30

Appendix Table 3 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fine sediment impacts. 

Agenc

y Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODFW Restoration 

and Enhancement Program 

 Funding for this program is through a surcharge imposed on all sport 

fishing licenses and commercial salmon fishing licenses and poundage fees. As such, funding is a subject to annual variations in fish abundance, harvest rates, and license sales. 

None. The Program will evaluate their ability to shift resources to priorities that emerge from recovery planning. Further changes in program scope and focus would require legislative action. 

Broproproneevarme

ODFW Salmon 

Trout Enhancement Program 

 Current staffing and the broad scope of the program limits the capacity 

of the program to address any single program element. 

Additional funding, additional FTE. Fun

ODFW Watershed 

Council Liaison 

 Currently there are only two watershed council liaison positions in 

ODFW, both in the North Coast Watershed District. There are no positions for other regions of Oregon. 

New positions. Fun

ODLCD 

Statewide Comprehensive Land Use Planning 

 The land use actions taken by local governments can supplement and 

support other specific restoration activities but are not sufficient in themselves to achieve restoration. Local land use actions will likely not remediate legacy conditions or significantly alter current practices, but will affect future development. 

None. The statewide land use program is not intended to be sufficient to recover salmon. 

Tecto lhigplarec

ODSL RemovalFill 

Program 

 DSL’s removal-fill permits include conditions designed to protect water 

quality, including turbidity monitoring and sediment and erosion control rquirements. Not enough projects are monitored for compliance. 

A greater number of projects need to be monitored for compliance. Additional, permanent compliance staff are needed. 

The Mofunsubyeastaafte

OWEB CREP 

Program 

 Limitation on recruiting private landowners for voluntary water quality 

restoration projects. Limitation to water quality restoration opportunities due to existing infrastructure. The limitation of CREP technical assistance has been demonstrated to be the single most important factor linked to enrollment. 

Increased capital and non-capital funds Fun

OWEB Grant 

Program 

 There is a limitation on local capacity to provide the landowner 

outreach, project design and facilitate implementation to address agricultural management, forest management and urban runoff that affects sediment delivery to streams. 

Increased funds available to support local conservation capacity in watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts. A direct conversation with the industrial forest landowners about identifying ways to further address forest road runoff. 

Funlanand 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-31

Appendix Table 3 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fine sediment impacts. 

Agenc

y Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

OWRD Enclosed 

Livestock Water Delivery Systems 

 When combined with riparian fencing programs, opportunities to protect 

and restore riparian communities, including filtering of fine sediments, while providing livestock watering capabilities are increased. There is currently no monitoring program in place to evaluate program effectiveness. 

No modifications to program design are proposed. The program would benefit from expanded outreach and education. 

The lanand fendevres
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-32

Appendix Table 4. Program sufficiencies to address habitat complexity impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

 ODA Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts 

 Strong local infrastructure, provides strong local involvement and action. Districts focus efforts 

and resources on areas of highest priority. However, addressing this limiting factor requires a reduction in productive land which is not a priority for landowners. There is no monitoring to demonstrate effectiveness. 

None at this time. Given more resources (funding) implementation of on-theground actions would be accelerated. Incentives are needed to foster landowner buy-in. 

Strewpr

 ODF Fire Program Resources are needed to assist forest landowners to reduce fuels that place forested 

watersheds at risk. Infrastructure is also needed to support resource enhancement opportunities through biomass conversion projects. 

More coordinated efforts by all of Oregon’s agencies and landowners to work collaboratively with federal partners to increase the contribution for recovery from federal forests. 

Fe‘cplfowmbolamlocobeagmrean

by shvaspdearcoplfofro
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-33

Appendix Table 4. Program sufficiencies to address habitat complexity impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

 ODF Oregon Forest 

Practices Act 

 The trend should be improving for in-stream habitat complexity and off channel availability. 

Vegetation retention along streams was not required until FPA rules were first established in 1972. Vegetation retention standards were revised in 1983, 1987, 1994, and 2006. Under the current Forest Practices Act, riparian areas are designed to provide the vegetation necessary for riparian functions including shade, large wood, and nutrients. A monitoring program is in place and an adaptive management process incorporates information. Rules are modified as necessary to meet the goals for riparian function and water quality. The existing vegetation in these riparian management areas will mature and provide these functions; however this will take many decades to occur. In the short term, landowners make voluntary contributions to habitat complexity through the Oregon Plan. Documentation Links Final Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment: 

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/OregonPlan

Sufficiency Analysis: A Statewide Evaluation of Forest Practices Act Effectiveness in 

Protecting Water Quality, ODF and DEQ 2002. 

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/docs/fp/AllSAv1031.pdf

Harvest Effects on Riparian Function & Structure

o FPMP Technical Report #12 (pdf) - Harvest Effects on Riparian Function and Structure , 

July 2001 

o Executive Summary (pdf) 

Evaluation of the vegetation retention requirements along western Oregon small and medium fish-bearing streams is underway. If modifications are needed, methods to accomplish these modifications through regulatory and non-regulatory means will be considered. 

Lafiscocoanprmal
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-34

Appendix Table 4 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address habitat complexity impacts 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODF Private forestry 

component of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

 The protection and voluntary measures should result in 

improving trends for in-stream habitat complexity and off channel availability. Under the Forest Practices Act, riparian areas are designed to provide the vegetation necessary for riparian functions including shade, large wood, and nutrients.. A monitoring program is in place, and an adaptive management process incorporates information. Rules are modified as necessary to meet the goals for riparian function. The existing vegetation in these riparian management areas will mature and provide these functions; however this will take many decades to occur. In the short term, landowners make voluntary contributions to improve habitat complexity through the Oregon Plan. Through the voluntary measures, the temporal and spatial opportunities for improvements are greatly accelerated. Forest landowners are contributing directly to the habitat complexity and off-channel availability by actively placing large wood during the course of forest operations. While not yet fully systematic, the proportion of operations conducting restoration as part of the operation should increase over time. Prioritization concepts, such as high aquatic potential are being developed. Documentation Links Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Watershed Restoration Inventory OAR 629-640-0105: Placing Large Wood Key Pieces in Type F Streams to Improve Fish Habitat: This rule streamlines the process for placing large wood when conducted during a forest operation under the FPA. It is anticipated that this new rule will facilitate increased voluntary placement of large wood. This assessment is based on more than just monitoring. Every “call” is based on monitoring, rules, policies, incentives, education, and guidance. 

More information about the needs and priorities would assist landowners in efficiently spending limited resources. Monitoring of effectiveness could be improved 

Sufficient incentivescope of non-regulaneeds. More stewabiologists are nececommitment landowwould strengthen thcomplement the tecODF&W, and OSU 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-35

Appendix Table 4 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address habitat complexity impacts 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODF State Forest Program The program is built on a sound theoretical basis. Similar 

practices to those employed by ODF have been proven to improve fish habitats and populations in other studies. While this gives reason to believe that the FMP standards are effective, the degree of effectiveness has not yet been established because monitoring is not yet complete. Documentation Because program standards meet or exceed those under the FPA, the documentation listed to support the sufficiency of the FPA will also support the sufficiency of the State Forests Program. Future monitoring reports produced by the State Forests Program will likely document any additional benefits produced by FMP strategies. 

The need for modification to the current program is uncertain, pending the results of monitoring. 

Staffing and fundinhabitat restoration conducted opportutimber sales. Additiconducted with incr

ODFW Conservation 

Strategy for Oregon 

 The Oregon Conservation Strategy is a new voluntary 

program. As such, monitoring and evaluation will be necessary to determine the effectiveness of the program. 

None at this time. The role of this new program as it pertains specifically to listed salmon and steelhead is still being defined. 

Voluntary measureimplemented 

ODFW Lands Resources 

Program 

 Uncertain of funding status or participation by public and 

private entities (i.e. Riparian Lands Tax Incentive Program). 

Need further promotion of existing programs by I and E, Wildlife Division, and District staff. 

Funding and staff t

ODFW Restoration and 

Enhancement Program 

 Funding for this program is through a surcharge imposed on 

all sport fishing licenses and commercial salmon fishing licenses and poundage fees. As such, funding is a subject to annual variations in fish abundance, harvest rates, and license sales. 

None. The Program will evaluate their ability to shift resources to priorities that emerge from recovery planning. Further changes in program scope and focus would require legislative action. 

Broad legal mandaability of the prograof recovery planninfunding mechanism

ODFW Salmon Trout 

Enhancement Program 

 Current staffing and the broad scope of the program limits the 

capacity of the program to address any single program element. 

Additional funding, additional FTE. Funding. 

ODFW Watershed Council 

Liaison 

 Currently there are only two watershed council liaison 

positions in ODFW, both in the North Coast Watershed District. There are no positions for other regions of Oregon. 

New positions. Funding. 

ODLCD Statewide 

Comprehensive Land Use Planning 

 The land use actions taken by local governments can 

supplement and support other specific restoration activities but are not sufficient in themselves to achieve restoration. Local land use actions will likely not remediate legacy conditions or significantly alter current practices, but will affect future development. 

None. The statewide land use program is not intended to be sufficient to recover salmon. 

Technical and plangovernments would local planning effor
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-36

Appendix Table 4 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address habitat complexity impacts 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODSL Removal-Fill 

Program 

 DSL’s removal-fill permitting process encourages protection 

and restoration of instream and off channel habitat and wetlands. At current staffing levels, DSL does not always have the resources to do the outreach necessary to encourage landowners to protect and restore water resources. 

Additional funding would increase the effectiveness of the program. 

The fact that DSL dthe removal of large protect instream an

ODSL Voluntary 

Restoration Initiative 

 The Initiative provides direct technical assistance to 

landowners and organizations involved in restoring wetlands that provide off channel habitat. Because the Initiative is only funded for three years, its impact will be too limited to significantly address the threat of off channel habitat loss. The Initiative is too new to document program effectiveness. 

Converting this three-year program to a permanent program would increase effectiveness. The Initiative is too new to determine what program modifications might be needed. 

The Initiative is funsubject to reauthoryear period. The stafter that time. 

OWEB CREP Program Limitation on recruiting private landowners for voluntary water 

quality restoration projects. Limitation to water quality restoration opportunities due to existing infrastructure. The limitation of CREP technical assistance has been demonstrated to be the single most important factor linked to enrollment. 

Increased capital and non-capital funds 

Funding 

OWEB Grant Program Limitation on technical assistance to design floodplain 

restoration and stream complexity projects that can provide benefits through the range of natural flow conditions. Limitation on recruiting private landowners for voluntary floodplain restoration project implementation and protection and restoration of side-channel habitat. Limitation to floodplain and side-channel restoration and protection opportunities due to existing infrastructure. 

Increased funding for technical assistance for project design and outreach to engage landowners. Effectiveness monitoring of large wood placement projects to answer questions about the stability and movement of large wood through Oregon streams. 

Funding 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-37

Appendix Table 5. Program sufficiencies to address water temperature impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODA Agricultural 

Water Quality Management (SB 1010) 

 Basin plans and rules are reviewed biennially to determine whether the plan is 

sufficient to meet and address water quality standards, and modified as necessary to meet deficiencies and new requirements or information. Reviews include review of compliance actions, outreach activities, projects, and monitoring results. ODA focuses efforts and resources on areas of highest priority and program is enforced. “Compliance” is based on inspections prompted by “notification” of inappropriate occurrences; increasing complaints and notifications reflect an increased public awareness and greater number of basin rules in place. Water quality monitoring is conducted by DEQ at permanent sites. Aerial photography at 4-5 yr intervals documents riparian condition trends. 

Biennial reviews will determine if modifications are needed. Given more resources (funding) implementation of on-the-ground actions, including monitoring, would be accelerated. More monitoring would provide improved documentation of program adequacy.

Landooutreaand nagricuthis is proceadequscales 

ODA Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts 

 Strong local infrastructure, provides strong local involvement and action. 

Districts focus efforts and resources on areas of highest priority. An accounting of outreach activities and conservation planning and practices reported by SWCDs on an annual basis is available from ODA. 

None at this time. Given more resources (funding) implementation of on-the-ground actions would be accelerated. Additional measurement of program effectiveness is needed through documentation of habitat improvement. 

Stable resou

ODEQ 401 Hydroelectric 

Recertification 

 Certifications are based on review that the proposed project will meet water 

quality standards. Given that most major hydroelectric projects are going through relicensing and that some actions will be based on further monitoring and adaptive management strategies (monitoring and adaptive management needs are specified for each project), additional data will be collected in the future to document program effectiveness. Documentation will be developed as part of the TMDL implementation process. 

Additional Funding and Staff the st

basedadjusprogra

ODEQ Non-Point Source 

Program 

 The program relies on existing state and local authorities to address non point 

sources of pollution. Programs to address nonpoint sources, especially in urban and agricultural areas, are relatively recent and additional time and trend monitoring is needed to document results. Additionally, while a schedule for implementation is to be identified, timing of implementation is often dependent on adequate future funding which often is not guaranteed or certain. 

Adequate monitoring program needed; see other programs listed in this document for modifications needed as it relies on other existing state and local authorities for implementation. See other programs listed in this document for Modifications Needed. 

See odocumon othautho
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-38

Appendix Table 5. Program sufficiencies to address water temperature impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODEQ Point Source 

Permits 

 Permits are written to meet water quality standards, sources not in compliance 

have to come into compliance within the permit cycle (typically, 5 years). Compliance monitoring is required. Permits are reviewed and updated on at least 5-year basis or as needed, based on new requirements. Additionally, the TMDL program can require additional treatment to meet water quality based conditions. The CWA has a citizen lawsuit provision which is an effective oversight provision for permitting. Studies are required as part of the permit process, including mixing zones surveys. Additional data and reports are available through ODEQ. 

None Numb

Fundiand fehas rea Blue which structfunds

Appendix Table 5. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address water temperature impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed C

ODEQ TMDLs TMDLs target bringing waters back into compliance with water quality 

standards. Oregon entered into a Consent Decree and Memorandum of Agreement with USEPA in 2000 under which it committed to substantially complete TMDLs statewide by 2010 (based on number of waters listed on the 1998 303(d) list). Most of the subbasins in Oregon are listed for temperature with TMDLs developed to address temperature issues for the entire subbasin. Therefore, most of the state should have TMDLs for temperature in the coming years. Implementation follows the TMDLs although there are many programs already in place in much of Oregon. Given that this program is fairly new and it will take years to decades to address degraded riparian conditions, there is limited documentation on the effectiveness of TMDL-related programs to address temperature. TMDL processes will be a condition of 401 hydroelectric certifications 

Additional Staffing. Staffing resources. 

ODEQ Water Quality 

Standards 

 Temperature Standards were recently updated (December 2003) and 

approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (March 2004). The numeric and narrative criteria, when achieved, should protect fish and other aquatic life in all life stages. Given that the criteria were adopted recently, programs that target achieving these criteria have been recently modified or developed, therefore field documentation of the effectiveness of the standard to protect fish is limited. Documentation will be developed as part of the TMDL process. 

Additional staffing for this program (DEQ had a preliminary budget request in for the 2007 Legislature, but did receive the Governor’s approval). 

Number of staff 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-39

Appendix Table 5. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address water temperature impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed C

ODF Fire Program Resources are needed to assist forest landowners to reduce fuels that 

place forested watersheds at risk. Infrastructure is also needed to support resource enhancement opportunities through biomass conversion projects. 

More coordinated efforts by all of Oregon’s agencies and landowners to work collaboratively with federal partners to increase the contribution for recovery from federal forests. 

Federal and private focan place private foreuncharacteristic wildfimanaged. There is a nODF&W, and all landomanagement of federcollaborative relationsresource agencies anagencies may restore resilience of federal foinformation shared anperspectives on site-sdeterminations. Wildfia community wildfire ppriority areas for hazalands. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-40

Appendix Table 5. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address water temperature impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed C

ODF Oregon 

Forest Practices Act 

 Shade levels for streams on forestlands are consistently measured at 

high levels. A sufficiency analysis established that on a landscape level and for most streams the water quality standards are being met by the current rules. Areas of concern that were identified were limited and increments of temperature change that might result from the areas of concern are not of the magnitude to result in adverse stress or mortality. The relationships among temperature, sunlight, and fish productivity in some streams is being evaluated in several large research projects including an ODF riparian function study, the Hinkle Creek watershed study, and the Trask River watershed study. An adaptive management process will incorporate monitoring and research results into the Forest Practices Act. Documentation Links Final Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment: 

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/OregonPlan

Sufficiency Analysis: A Statewide Evaluation of Forest Practices Act Effectiveness in Protecting Water Quality, ODF and DEQ 2002. 

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/docs/fp/AllSAv1031.pdf

Stream Temperature Monitoring o FPMP Technical Report #2 (pdf), Cooperative Stream 

Temperature Monitoring: Project Completion Report For 1994 - 1995 (Small Type N Streams), Sept. 1999 

o FPMP Technical Report #3 (pdf), Effectiveness of Riparian 

Management Areas and Hardwood Conversions in Maintaining Stream Temperature, March 1997 

Shade Quality Studyo FPMP Technical Report #13 (pdf) - Shade Conditions Over 

Forested Streams in the Blue Mtn and Coast Range Georegions of Oregon, August 2001 

o Executive Summary (pdf) 

Research and monitoring is currently under way to determine the linkages am 

Funding for existing amonitoring projects is temperature, riparian mortality of salmon anspan multiple years of term commitment of fufeedback to inform po
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-41

Appendix Table 5. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address water temperature impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed C

ODF Private 

forestry component of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

 The trend for water temperature is improving. Oregon Plan measures 

contribute to developing healthy riparian stand conditions that are presumed necessary for salmonids and water temperature, The Oregon Plan is designed to decrease the time to get to healthy conditions through active management. Where landowners choose not to participate in the Oregon Plan, standard Oregon Forest Practices RMA protections apply that develop healthy riparian conditions through passive management. Documentation Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Watershed Restoration Inventory

Modifications should keep pace with best available science. 

Funding for existing ais critical to understanconditions, and stress steelhead. These studcollection and take a lfunding and resources policy decisions. More project accomplishme

ODF State Forest 

Program 

 The program is built on a sound theoretical basis: The FMP provides for 

shade along fish-bearing streams. While this gives reason to believe that the FMP standards are effective, the degree of effectiveness has not yet been established because monitoring is not yet complete. Documentation Because program standards meet or exceed those under the FPA, the documentation listed to support the sufficiency of the FPA will also support the sufficiency of the State Forests Program. Future monitoring reports produced by the State Forests Program will likely document any additional benefits produced by FMP strategies. 

The need for modification to the current program is uncertain, pending the results of monitoring. 

None identified. 

ODFW Conservation 

Strategy for Oregon 

 The Oregon Conservation Strategy is a new voluntary program. As 

such, monitoring and evaluation will be necessary to determine the effectiveness of the program. 

None at this time. The role of this new program as it pertains specfically to listed salmon and steelhead is still being defined. 

Voluntary measures – implemented. 

ODFW Lands 

Resources Program 

 Uncertain of funding status or participation by public and private entities 

(i.e. Riparian Lands Tax Incentive Program). 

Need further promotion of existing programs by I and E, Wildlife Division, and District staff. 

Funding and staff time

ODFW Restoration 

and Enhancement Program 

 Funding for this program is through a surcharge imposed on all sport 

fishing licenses and commercial salmon fishing licenses and poundage fees. As such, funding is a subject to annual variations in fish abundance, harvest rates, and license sales. 

None. The Program will evaluate their ability to shift resources to priorities that emerge from recovery planning. Further changes in program scope and focus would require legislative action. 

Broad legal mandates of the program to focurecovery planning, vamechanism. 

ODFW Salmon Trout 

Enhancement Program 

 Current staffing and the broad scope of the program limits the capacity 

of the program to address any single program element. 

Additional funding, additional FTE. 

Funding. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-42

Appendix Table 5. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address water temperature impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed C

ODFW Watershed 

Council Liaison 

 Currently there are only two watershed council liaison positions in 

ODFW, both in the North Coast Watershed District. There are no positions for other regions of Oregon. 

New positions. Funding. 

ODSL Removal-Fill 

Program 

 DSL’s removal-fill permits include conditions designed to protect water 

quality, including riparian vegetation removal restrictions and revegetation requirements. Not enough projects are monitored for compliance. 

Modifications Needed: A greater number of projects need to be monitored for compliance. Additional, permanent compliance staff are needed. 

The half-time Compliaposition is funded for reauthorization each yThe status of the posi

OWEB CREP 

Program 

 Limitation on recruiting private landowners for voluntary water quality 

restoration projects. Limitation to water quality restoration opportunities due to existing infrastructure. The limitation of CREP technical assistance has been demonstrated to be the single most important factor linked to enrollment. 

Increased capital and noncapital funds Funding 

OWEB Grant 

Program 

 Limitation on recruiting private landowners for voluntary water quality 

restoration projects. Limitation to water quality restoration opportunities due to existing infrastructure. 

Increased capital and noncapital funds Funding 

OWRD Enclosed 

Livestock Water Delivery Systems 

 When combined with riparian fencing programs, opportunities to protect 

and restore riparian communities, including filtering of fine sediments, while providing livestock watering capabilities are increased. There is currently no monitoring program in place to evaluate program effectiveness. 

No modifications to program design are proposed. The program would benefit from expanded outreach and education. 

The program is reliant Construction and subsand off-channel waterfinancial resources. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-43

Appendix 6. Program sufficiencies to address fish passage impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODF Oregon 

Forest Practices Act 

 An improving trend for fish passage is clear. Past practices that constrained fish 

passage have been abandoned and passage will be systematically restored through 

the regulatory program at the time of normal structure replacement. Fish passage rules under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry were first established in 1973 and last modified in 1994. Prior to 1994, the design standard was for passage of adult fish upstream, without a clear requirement to maintain passage. Current rules require that all roads built since 1994 provide and maintain fish passage (adult and juvenile fish) and as culverts and other crossing structure on roads built prior to 1994 are replaced they will then be required to meet the current standards for fish passage. Landowners voluntarily increase the rate of restoring passage on roads built prior to 1994 as part of the Oregon plan. FPA monitoring shows high levels of fish passage are attained on new and replacement structures. Documentation Links Sufficiency Analysis: A Statewide Evaluation of Forest Practices Act Effectiveness in Protecting Water Quality, ODF and DEQ 2002. http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/docs/fp/AllSAv1031.pdf

FPMP Technical Report #14 (pdf) - Compliance With Fish Passage and Peak 

Flow Requirements at Stream Crossings - Final Study Results FPMP Technical Report #6 (pdf) - 1998 Pilot Study Results 

Executive Summary - 1998 Pilot Study Results (pdf), March 2000 - brief overview of the Pilot Study Results 

No modifications are currently needed. 

ODF Private 

forestry component of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

 The trend for fish passage at road crossings is clearly improving. Landowners 

voluntarily increase the rate of restoring passage on roads built prior to 1994 as part of the Oregon plan. FPA monitoring shows high levels of fish passage are attained on new and replacement structures. OWEB reporting indicates high levels of work on forestlands. Reporting indicates many stream crossing structures built prior to 1994, while still functioning as crossing structure, are being replaced on forestland ahead of the normal replacement schedule. This is done to restore fish passage. The number and potential impacts of existing fish barriers and blocked habitat remain unknown, however, most landowners have inventoried and prioritized barriers based upon some type of restoration schedule. Documentation Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Watershed Restoration Inventory 

Oregon Plan Measures for Private Forestlands are in the process of being updated. Changes reflect that many landowners have shifted emphasis from a ‘voluntary’ approach and now include legacy road work in routine road & stream crossing maintenance plans. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-44

Appendix 6. Program sufficiencies to address fish passage impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODF State Forest 

Program 

 FPA monitoring shows high levels of fish passage are attained on new and 

replacement structures. Monitoring results and on-the-ground consultation with ODF stewardship foresters and ODFW habitat biologists results in a high level of success. Additionally, the state forests program provides monitoring to ensure that fish passage meets the program’s performance measures. Documentation Because program standards meet or exceed those under the FPA, the documentation listed to support the sufficiency of the FPA will also support the sufficiency of the State Forests Program. Future monitoring reports produced by the State Forests Program will likely document any additional benefits produced by FMP strategies 

No modifications are currently needed. 

Appendix Table 6. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fish passage impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODFW Conservation 

Strategy for Oregon 

 The Oregon Conservation Strategy is a new voluntary 

program. As such, monitoring and evaluation will be necessary to determine the effectiveness of the program. 

None at this time. The role of this new program as it pertains specifically to listed salmon and steelhead is still being defined. 

Voluntary measures implemented 

ODFW Fish Passage 

Program 

 Compliance by owners or operators is obligatory, but 

approval is distributed, reporting mechanisms are not in place, and compliance rates are unknown; availability of funds to implement program. 

Funding for staff to perform regulatory and outreach role. 

None identified. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-45

Appendix Table 6. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fish passage impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODFW Fish Screening 

and Passage Grant Program 

 Actions dependent on voluntary participation in the program; 

availability of funds to implement projects. 

Funding for outreach. None identified. 

ODFW Lands Resources 

Program 

 Uncertain of funding status or participation by public and 

private entities (i.e. Riparian Lands Tax Incentive Program). 

Need further promotion of existing programs by I and E, Wildlife Division, and District staff. 

Funding and staff tim

ODFW Restoration and 

Enhancement Program 

 Funding for this program is through a surcharge imposed on 

all sport fishing licenses and commercial salmon fishing licenses and poundage fees. As such, funding is a subject to

annual variations in fish abundance, harvest rates, and license sales. 

None. The Program will evaluate their ability to shift resources to priorities that emerge from recovery planning. Further changes in program scope and focus would require legislative action. 

Broad legal mandatof the program to forecovery planning, vmechanism. 

ODFW Salmon Trout 

Enhancement Program 

 Current staffing and the broad scope of the program limits 

the capacity of the program to address any single program element. 

Additional funding, additional FTE. Funding. 

ODFW Watershed 

Council Liaison 

 Currently there are only two watershed council liaison 

positions in ODFW, both in the North Coast Watershed District. There are no positions for other regions of Oregon. 

New positions. Funding. 

ODLCD Statewide 

Comprehensive Land Use Planning 

 The land use actions taken by local governments can 

supplement and support other specific restoration activities but are not sufficient in themselves to achieve restoration. Local land use actions will likely not remediate legacy conditions or significantly alter current practices, but will affect future development. 

None. The statewide land use program is not intended to be sufficient to recover salmon. 

Technical and planngovernments would local planning effort
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-46

Appendix Table 6. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fish passage impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODOT Salmon-Fish 

Passage Program 

 ODOT’s Salmon-Fish Passage Program provides adequate 

technical and institutional capacity to implement the program within its jurisdictional area. The program selects, designs, constructs, monitors, and documents fish passage improvement projects. The program is held in high regards and is effective for improving fish passage at known fish passage impediments; however, it lacks budgetary capacity and a clear timeline for full implementation. Currently, the ODFW statewide artificial obstruction inventory (Inventory) identifies a total of 770 priority structures owned and managed by ODOT that do not provide adequate fish passage (255 or 33%=High Priority, 167 or 22%= Medium Priority, 348 45%=Low Priority for repair). From 1997 to 2006 the ODOT program repaired 109 high priority fish passage culverts (35 high priority culverts with replacements and 74 high priority culverts with retrofits) or 42% of the ODOT managed statewide high priority culvert inventory total. ODOT high priority culvert repairs have made 370 miles of stream habitat accessible to native migratory fish. Post construction effectiveness monitoring and documentation to satisfy federal and state regulatory agencies are complete for these projects. To date, 146 high priority culverts owned and managed by ODOT continue to need repairs. We anticipate the list will grow as more culverts are inventoried. At the current rate of ~4 culvert projects repaired each year it will take approximately 36 years to repair or replace the remaining balance of high priority culverts. Similarly, there are an additional 515 (67% of the statewide total) medium and low priority culverts that will need repairs once the high priority culvert list is complete. Using the projected rate of numbers of projects completed annually (n=4) it will take significantly longer to repair the medium and low priority culverts. At the current funding and repair rate, it will take decades (over 100 years) to make the appropriate repairs to all ODOT owned and managed culverts (n=661) that currently do not provide adequate fish passage. 

ODOT is working to repair as many high priority fish passage culverts as program funds will allow. Additional funding for project development and construction is necessary to decrease the timeframe this program can repair the remaining high priority culverts owned and managed by ODOT. Another key program management tool that continues to be lacking is an updated and prioritized comprehensive artificial obstruction inventory. The current Inventory is not adequate for managers to make informed planning decisions for future investments of limited fish passage funds. The Inventory aggregates artificial obstructions into three priority categories: (high, medium, and low) and some culverts known to impede fish passage are not included in the Inventory. There is no systematic standardized method or protocol for the aggregation of these culverts into the three priority categories. It would be beneficial if high priority culverts were re-evaluated and re-ranked numerically either statewide and/or basinwide. A numeric ordering of the high priority culverts will allow ODOT and other owners and operators of substandard culvert facilities to make more informed project selection decisions based on statewide or basin-wide priorities. A comprehensive artificial obstruction inventory and robust prioritization of know fish passage impediments will provide ODOT and other owners the management tools necessary to make informed planning decisions that are consistent with salmon recovery goals. 

In addition to the limprogram’s budget, pconstruction costs c2006, construction c10% due to increasengineering design, contractor supervisiincreased costs con

result in fewer fish pa given year. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-47

Appendix Table 6. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address fish passage impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODSL Removal-Fill 

Program 

 DSL’s removal-fill permitting process requires that permitted 

projects maintain or restore fish passage, and encourages removal or replacement of road crossings and other passage impediments. At current staffing levels, DSL does not always have the resources to do the outreach necessary to encourage landowners to remove or replace fish passage impediments. In addition, very few projects are monitored for compliance. 

Additional funding would increase the effectiveness of the program. A greater number of projects need to be monitored for compliance. Additional, permanent compliance staff are needed. 

The half-time Compposition is funded foreauthorization each The status of the potime. 

OWEB Grant Program The primary limitation to effectively addressing fish passage 

barriers has been lack of complete information on the nature and location of barriers in relation to productive fish habitat. OWEB has funded data gathering on a watershed scale and used information to prioritize barriers for removal. Where this information is available grants have been available to remedy high priority barriers. 

Increased capital and non-capital funds Funding 

Appendix Table 7. Program sufficiencies to address instream flow impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODEQ Non-Point 

Source Program 

 The program relies on existing state and local authorities to address non point sources of 

pollution. Programs to address nonpoint sources, especially in urban and agricultural areas, are relatively recent and additional time and trend monitoring is needed to document results. Additionally, while a schedule for implementation is to be identified, timing of implementation is often dependent on adequate future funding which often is not guaranteed or certain. 

Adequate monitoring program needed; see other programs listed this document for modifications needed as it relies on other existinstate and local authorities for implementation. See other programlisted in this document for Modifications Needed. 

OWEB Grant Program Limitation on willing participation and effective grant process for purchase of water rights Increased capital and non-capital 

funds 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-48

Appendix Table 7. Program sufficiencies to address instream flow impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

OWRD Administration 

of Water Rights 

 Program design for the review of new permits is sufficient to consider needs of listed fish 

species. OAR Chapter 690 Division 33 lays out public interest standards for new appropriations including surface waters and hydraulically connected groundwater with the potential for substantial interference (OAR 690-009-040). Included in Division 33 are interagency consultations to determine consistency of proposed applications with the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Consultation occurs with NPPC, ODFW, USFWS, NMFS, Indian tribes and appropriate local governments. Permits that cannot be conditioned to achieve consistence are presumed to impair or be detrimental to the public interest. Ongoing implementation of these OARs includes completion of documentation for each new applicant. Surface water availability is modeled for each month and evaluated at the 80% exceedance level. This information is available through the OWRD on line interactive mapping program: http://map.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wr_mapping/. 

Provide flow data to support the evaluation of flows and their sufficiency during critical periods, athe adaptive management process help assure the review and consultation process for new permremains sufficiently protective. 

OWRD Flow 

Restoration Programs 

 These programs are voluntary in nature. Instream leases are limited to a five year period, 

but leases may be renewed indefinitely. Transfers may be temporary or permanent. Allocations of conserved water are permanent. Participation in Voluntary Flow Restoration programs continues to grow. Based on the best available data, over 287 cfs have been permanently restored and 580 cfs temporarily restored instream as of 12/31/2006. Benefits realized will vary by participation levels, season, stream reach, region, and by the duration of the lease or transfer. Although the benefits of incremental improvements to flow at various times and on various life stages of listed species may not be certain, OWRD encourages incremental improvements to flow through these voluntary programs. Voluntary flow restoration programs include temporary instream leases, permanent allocations of conserved water and temporary or permanent transfers. Performance is currently available through measures tracked annually (KPM#1). Performance measures are posted online through: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/LAW/performance.shtml

Performance is tied to flows restored in key watersheds. Key watersheds, or priority water availability basin, can be found through the online interactive mapper. The performance measure is tracked by Oregon fiscal year. Graphical representation of restored flows for 2006 is available through: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/mgmt_flow_restoration.shtml. This 

representation shows a positive trend in participation as outreach continues and awareness of the program grows. Accessibility of these data via the OWRD website provides documentation of program success, tools to assist willing water right holders identify needs as they relate to key watersheds and flow restoration, and will provide data important to monitoring and adaptive management. 

These programs would benefit from increased education and outreach increase participation levels, and from coordinated follow-up to encourage re-enrollment where possible. Provide available flow restoration data to support the evaluation of flows and their sufficiency during critical periods athe adaptive management processSeptember 2006, funding was awarded through the National Fish and Wildlife’s Columbia TransactioProgram to migrate instream leasintransfer and allocations of conservwater data to OWRD’s online WateRights Information System (WRIS)Access through this OWRD websitwill provide critical data for evaluatcurrent flow restoration activities asupporting adaptive management. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-49

Appendix Table 7 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address instream flow impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

OWRD Lease/Transfer 

Water Rights Associated with CREP Program 

 This program works in conjunction with CREP to 

benefit both the restoration of riparian function and minimum flows as lands are enrolled and associated water rights are returned instream. Participation in the CREP program and instream leasing or transfer of associated water rights are voluntary. Water rights that are not leased or transferred instream may be used consistent within the terms and conditions of the water right, which may, depending on the nature of the water right, reduce potential benefits to minimum flows and riparian function. 

Outreach and education programs could be improved through increased resources and greater coordination. Provide available flow restoration data to support monitoring, evaluation and the adaptive management process. 

The program landowner avoluntary paeducation aresources. 

OWRD Water Distribution 

and Regulation 

 Instream water rights do not guarantee minimum 

flows. Rather, they establish a quantity of water for instream beneficial use, regulated by priority date. Many instream water rights have priority dates that are junior to other water rights, reducing opportunities to regulate on their behalf. The resulting impacts to instream flows may vary by stream reach, season and priority date of the instream right. Voluntary compliance with water rights and regulations was approximately 96% statewide in 2005. However, there are over 80,000 surface water rights in Oregon. Efforts to monitor streamflow and protect instream water rights are limited by staff resources and monitoring capabilities. 

Increased monitoring capabilities will support water distribution and regulation activities on behalf of water rights, including instream water rights. These additional data may also support evaluation of incremental changes to flow and the sufficiency of those flows during critical periods 

Funding for has been un2007-2009 bmonitoring ajunior status may limit thethese instanmeasures agoals as the
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-50

Appendix Table 7 (continued). Program sufficiencies to address instream flow impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

OWRD Water Supply and 

Conservation Planning 

 Water Management and Conservation Plans are not 

designed to directly address flow needs for listed fish species. However, stream flows may benefit from implementation of these plans and identified conservation measures. Plan implementation may delay the need for increased municipal diversions. Stream flows may improve through implementation of agricultural plans. OWRD encourages instream protection for all or a portion of increases to stream flow brought by implementation of agricultural plans. Voluntary enrollment in the Allocation of Conserved Water Program includes incentives for agricultural water suppliers and opportunities to restore instream flows and regulate on their behalf. Potential improvements to flow are dependent upon participation and full implementation of plans. There is currently no OWRD monitoring program in place to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. While stream flows may benefit, for the recovery of listed species, this and other plans are best considered in aggregate. Considered in aggregate, the sufficiency of some programs may change. 

The Agricultural Water Management and Conservation Plan program would benefit from expanded outreach and education. OWRD is currently developing a guidebook to assist agricultural water suppliers to prepare plans that meet Oregon and Federal requirements. This guidebook will help agricultural water suppliers describe their water systems and needs, identify their sources of water, and identify ways to manage and conserve those supplies to meet present and future needs. OWRD has also received funding for the majority of requested elements of a statewide Water Supply and Conservation Initiative. This initiative will strive to address statewide water supply needs through a statewide water needs assessment, inventory of potential above and below ground water storage sites, analyses of water conservation opportunities, investigation of basin yield estimates, and match funding for community-based and regional water supply planning. 

Water suppconstrained resources foprogram devagency budfunding requConservatio

OWRD Water Use 

Measurement Strategy 

 Measurement of water use does not directly protect 

flows, but may support the evaluation of needed flows. On a statewide scale, the Water Use Measurement and Reporting position was eliminated during the last biennium and has been restored for the 2007-2009 biennium. This position is responsible for database maintenance, maintenance of on-line reporting processes and helping to assure compliance with permit reporting conditions. Efforts to promote voluntary actions may be deterred by the cost associated with installation and maintenance of measuring equipment. A cost-share program to promote voluntary water use measurement and reporting is in place, but not currently funded. Ongoing implementation of the significant diversion program is constrained by staffing levels. 

No modifications to the design of this program are suggested. Restoration of the Water Use Measurement and Reporting position and funding for the existing cost-share program for voluntary water use measurement and reporting will improve ongoing implementation of the water use measurement strategy. Restoration of county-based Assistant Watermasters would further aid this strategy. 

Ongoing immeasuremeavailable re
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-51

Appendix Table 8. Program sufficiencies to address agriculture and forestry chemical impacts. 

Agency Program Sufficienc y Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODA Agricultural Water 

Quality Management (SB 1010) 

 Basin plans and rules are reviewed biennially to determine whether 

the plan is sufficient to meet and address water quality standards, and modified as necessary to meet deficiencies and new requirements or information. Reviews include review of compliance actions, outreach activities, projects, and monitoring results. ODA focuses efforts and resources on areas of highest priority and program is enforced. “Compliance” is based on inspections prompted by “notification” of inappropriate occurrences; increasing complaints and notifications reflect an increased public awareness and greater number of basin rules in place. Water quality monitoring is conducted by DEQ at permanent sites. Aerial photography at 4-5 yr intervals documents riparian condition trends. 

Biennial reviews will determine if modifications are needed. Given more resources (funding) implementation of onthe-ground actions, including monitoring, would be accelerated. More monitoring would provide improved documentation of program adequacy. 

Landowoutreach

new lanagricultuis only a technicamonitori

ODA Pesticides ODA is the EPA designated agency to enforce FIFRA in Oregon. 

This program operates under an MOA with EPA and is consistent 

with FIFRA requirements. There are several layers of controls to maintain responsible use of pesticides by the agricultural industry. 

None, meets federal requirements capacity 

ODEQ TMDLs TMDLs set targets to bring waters back into compliance with water 

quality standards. TMDLs can address those pesticides which have numeric standards established and can address excess nutrients which can cause other water quality standard exceedences (e.g. pH, dissolved oxygen). However, very few agricultural chemicals (such as pesticides that are currently in use) have numeric water quality standards established for them and would be addressed under this program only if they exceeded a narrative standard (e.g. introducing substances in levels that are harmful to aquatic life or bioaccumulate to levels that adversely affect public health or wildlife). Additionally, the cost for monitoring many of these chemicals is high so they are not routinely monitored, unless a problem is suspected. Given the limitation in monitoring for these chemicals and in having standards established to determine impact on beneficial uses, it is uncertain if the TMDL is adequate to address the universe of Agricultural Chemicals which could cause water quality problems. That is why, since 1999, ODEQ has been using a voluntary, collaborative approach called Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships (PSPs) to 

identify problems and improve water quality associated with pesticide use at the local level. The PSP approach uses local expertise in combination with water quality sampling and toxicology expertise of ODEQ to encourage and support voluntary changes that cause measurable environmental improvements. 

Additional staffing for this program or for an alternative program, such as the Pesticide Stewardship Partnership, to address this issue (DEQ has a budget request in for the 2007 Legislature to develop a toxics monitoring program). 

Sufficienidentify Water Qdevelopidentify 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-52

Appendix Table 8. (continued). Program sufficiencies to address agriculture and forestry chemical impacts

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODEQ TMDLs TMDLs set targets to bring waters back into compliance with water quality 

standards. TMDLs can address those pesticides which have numeric standards established and can address excess nutrients which can cause other water quality standard exceedences (e.g. pH, dissolved oxygen). However, very few agricultural chemicals (such as pesticides that are currently in use) have numeric water quality standards established for them and would be addressed under this program only if they exceeded a narrative standard (e.g. introducing substances in levels that are harmful to aquatic life or bioaccumulate to levels that adversely affect public health or wildlife). Additionally, the cost for monitoring many of these chemicals is high so they are not routinely monitored, unless a problem is suspected. Given the limitation in monitoring for these chemicals and in having standards established to determine impact on beneficial uses, it is uncertain if the TMDL is adequate to address the universe of Agricultural Chemicals which could cause water quality problems. That is why, since 1999, ODEQ has been using a voluntary, collaborative approach called Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships (PSPs) to identify problems and improve water 

quality associated with pesticide use at the local level. The PSP approach uses local expertise in combination with water quality sampling and toxicology expertise of ODEQ to encourage and support voluntary changes that cause measurable environmental improvements. 

Additional staffing for this program or for an alternative program, such as the Pesticide Stewardship Partnership, to address this issue (DEQ has a budget request in for the 2007 Legislature to develop a toxics monitoring program). 

Sufficienidentify cWater Qdevelopiidentify l

ODF Oregon 

Forest Practices Act 

 The rules include specific best management practices (BMPs) in addition to label 

requirements. Spill risks are addressed and reporting of spills is required. ODF Monitoring has shown that the BMPs protect water quality from drift impacts and otherwise protect riparian vegetation. Documented adverse impacts to salmonids from forestland chemical use are not known. Documentation Links Sufficiency Analysis: A Statewide Evaluation of Forest Practices Act Effectiveness in Protecting Water Quality, ODF and DEQ 2002. http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/docs/fp/AllSAv1031.pdf

Chemicals/Pesticides FPMP Technical Report #7 (pdf) - Aerial Pesticide Application Monitoring Final Report, March 2000 • Executive Summary (pdf) - shortened version of the Final Report • Eugene Water and Electric Board, Karl Morgenstern. May 2007. Case Study: 

Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Management on Municipal Water Supplies 

None identified. Lack of m

applicaticooperauses. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-53

Appendix 9. Program sufficiencies to address animal waste impacts.

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modification

Needed 

ODA Confined 

Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) 

 This program limits/controls nutrient impacts on water quality for both surface and ground water. It is consistent 

with the federal Clean Water Act requirements for CAFOs. An Application to Register is a new requirement to meet the new federal and state requirements for permitting and concentrated animal feeding operations. A continued goal of the CAFO program is to inspect each permitted CAFO once per year. ODA also reviews, approves or rejects, Animal Waste Management Plans and specifications for animal waste control facilities to verify they have been prepared in accordance with OAR 340-051 design criteria, and USDA-NRCS conservation practice 

standard guidance 590 for Oregon. As a result of this increased effort, ODA has seen overall improvement in compliance on permitted operations. 

None exceedfederal requirements

ODEQ TMDLs TMDLs set targets to bring waters back into compliance with water quality standards, most typically targets for 

bacteria and nutrients that would address concerns from animal wastes. These targets include load allocations for sectors such as agriculture, forestry and urban land uses with animal wastes typically being of concern in agricultural and urban land uses. The agricultural sector has programs that address a portion of animal wastes from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) and smaller live stock facilities through the CAFO and Agricultural Water Quality Management Plans respectively. However, programs in urban areas to address pet wastes or other sources of animal wastes (birds, etc) that get into streams via storm water runoff are relatively new, in development in many areas (especially the larger cities) or do not exist (especially in smaller cities). There is limited monitoring of the effectiveness of these programs, therefore it is uncertain if TMDLs will be adequate to address animal wastes. 

None at this time. 
Appendix F 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

F-54

Appendix 10. Program sufficiencies to address human, urban, or industrial waste impacts.

Agency Program Sufficiency Rationale Modifications Needed 

ODEQ Environmental 

Clean Ups 

 Clean up/remediation of sites addressed under this program occurs until DEQ 

determines that they pose no significant threat to human health or the environment and therefore require no further action. Monitoring is required to document the effectiveness of the Clean Up activity. Cleanups require documentation to assess “no further action” needed. 

None Need for a sustainab

revenues and expen

ODEQ Point Source 

Permits 

 Permits are written to meet water quality standards, sources not in compliance have to 

come into compliance within the permit cycle (typically, 5 years). Compliance monitoring is required. Permits are reviewed and updated on at least 5-year basis or as needed, based on new requirements. Additionally, the TMDL program can require additional treatment to meet water quality based conditions. The Clean Water Act provides for citizen lawsuit as an oversight provision. 

None Number of staff is al

blend of federal, stafunding has recently 

Ribbon Committee Rchanges to fee strucfunds. 

ODEQ TMDLs TMDLs set targets to bring waters back into compliance with water quality standards. 

These targets include waste load allocations for industrial and municipal point sources and load allocation for sector specific (forestry, agricultural and urban) non-point sources of pollution. Typically municipal and industrial waste sources that discharge to waters are regulated under a permit program. Additional requirements can be established based on the TMDLs. The TMDL program is relatively new (TMDLs in Oregon have been established since the late 1980's but work is underway to develop them statewide) and has focused on a limited number of parameters (temperature, bacteria, nutrients, solids and selected toxics). It is likely that TMDLs are effective at addressing these waste sources but further documentation of the program effectiveness is needed. Also, as additional toxic pollutants are monitored and problems are identified, TMDLs or other similar types of programs will need be developed. Documentation is developed as part of the TMDL process which is often a part of the 401 certification. 

None at this time 

Sufficient resources TMDLs and time to dmade. 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

F-55

Appendix 11. URLs of documents that further describe statewide management programs 

evaluated in this report. 

Agency Program 

Supporting 

Documents - 1 

Supporting 

Documents - 2 

Supporting 

Documents -3 

ODA 

Agricultural Water Quality 

Management (SB 1010) 

http://www.oregon.gov/OD

A/NRD/water_quality_front

.shtml 

ODA 

Confined Animal Feeding 

Operation (CAFO) 

http://www.oregon.gov/OD

A/NRD/cafo_front.shtml 

ODA Pesticides 

http://www.oregon.gov/OD

A/PEST/index.shtml 

ODA 

Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts 

http://www.oregon.gov/OD

A/SWCD/index.shtml 

ODA 

Weed Control and 

Invasive Species 

http://www.oregon.gov/OD

A/PLANT/index.shtml 

ODEQ 

401 Dredge & Fill 

Certifications 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/

wq/401Cert/401CertHome.

htm 

ODEQ 

401 Hydroelectric 

Recertification 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/

wq/401Cert/401CertHome.

htm 

ODEQ Environmental Clean Ups 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/l

q/cu/ 

ODEQ 

Non-Point Source 

Program 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/

wq/nonpoint/nonpoint.htm 

http://www.deq.state.or.u

s/wq/loans/srfloans.htm 

ODEQ Point Source Permits 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/

wq/wqpermit/stminfo.htm 

ODEQ Storm Water Permits 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/

wq/stormwater/swphome.ht

m 

ODEQ TMDLs 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/

WQ/TMDLs/TMDLs.htm 

http://www.deq.state.or.u

s/wq/pubs/factsheets/com

munity/pesticide.pdf 

ODEQ Water Quality Standards 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/

wq/standards/wqstdshome.h

tm 

ODF Fire Program 

http://www.odf.state.or.us/p

cf/fp/fpa.asp?id=401010207 

ODF 

Oregon Forest Practices 

Act 

http://www.odf.state.or.us/p

cf/fp/fpa.asp?id=401010207 

ODF 

Private forestry 

component of the Oregon 

Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds 

http://www.oregonplan.org/OPSW/cohoproject

/PDFs/8-4-

06.ODF.Coho.Plan.actions.

pdf 

ODF State Forest Program 

http://www.odf.state.or.us/p

cf/fp/fpa.asp?id=401010207 

http://egov.oregon.gov/O

DF/STATE_FORESTS/n

wfmp.shtml 

http://egov.oregon.g

ov/ODF/STATE_F

ORESTS/Roads_M

anual.shtml 

ODFW 

Conservation Strategy for 

Oregon 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/c

onservationstrategy/ 

ODFW Fish Passage Program 

www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/pa

ssage/ 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

F-56

Agency Program 

Supporting 

Documents - 1 

Supporting 

Documents - 2 

Supporting 

Documents -3 

ODFW 

Fish Screening and 

Passage Grant Program 

www.dfw.state.or.us/ODF

Whtml/InfoCntrFish/screen

_passage_grants.htm 

ODFW 

Lands Resources 

Program 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/l

ands/ 

ODFW 

Restoration and 

Enhancement Program 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/f

ish/RE/ 

ODFW 

Salmon Trout 

Enhancement Program 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/

STEP/ 

ODSL Removal-Fill Program 

http://www.oregon.gov/DS

L/PERMITS/r-fintro.shtml 

ODSL 

Voluntary Restoration 

Initiative 

http://www.oregonstateland

s.us/DSL/WETLAND/wetla

nd_restoration.shtml 

OWEB CREP Program 

Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board 

OWEB Grant Program 

Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board 

OWRD 

Administration of Water 

Rights 

http://www.wrd.state.or.us/

OWRD/PUBS/aquabook_n

ewrights.shtml 

http://www1.wrd.state.or.

us/pdfs/reports/SW02-

002.pdf 

OWRD 

Flow Restoration 

Programs 

http://www.wrd.state.or.us/

OWRD/mgmt_opsw.shtml 

http://www.wrd.state.or.u

s/OWRD/mgmt.shtml 

http://www.oregon.

gov/OWRD/mgmt.s

htmlWater_Conservation 

OWRD 

Lease/Transfer Water 

Rights Associated with 

CREP Program 

http://www.oregon.gov/OW

RD/mgmt_leases.shtml 

http://www1.wrd.state.or.

us/pdfs/CREP_letter.pdf 

OWRD 

Water Distribution and 

Regulation 

http://www.wrd.state.or.us/

OWRD/mgmt.shtml 

http://www.wrd.state.or.u

s/OWRD/PUBS/aquaboo

k_enforcing.shtml 

OWRD 

Water Supply and 

Conservation Planning 

http://www.wrd.state.or.us/

OWRD/mgmt.shtml 

OWRD 

Water Use Measurement 

Strategy 

http://www.wrd.state.or.us/

OWRD/WR/water_use_rep

ort.shtml 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-1

Appendix G 

Culverts which Need to be Improved or Replaced

Within Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Populations
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-2

Number and location of culverts which need to be improved or replaced within steelhead 

populations in Fifteenmile Creek and the Deschutes River Basin. This is an incomplete list 

as comprehensive culvert inventories have not been conducted. 

Fifteenmile Creek 

Total Culverts = 6 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Ramsey Cr 

(FS 4450 Rd) 

USFS 1 H 

 Fifteenmile Cr 

(FS 44 Rd) 

USFS 1 H 

 Threemile 

(Hwys I-84 & 197) 

ODOT 2 M 

 Chenowith Cr 

(Bridge at Hwy 30) 

ODOT 1 M 

NF Mill Cr (RM 6.0) Wasco Co 1 U 

Deschutes River Eastside 

Total Culverts = 2 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Mud Springs Cr 

(RR culvert in Sec. 

15 above Gateway) 

Jefferson City 1 H 

 Hay Cr (new 

channel near mouth) 

Private 1 H 

Deschutes River Westside 

Total Culverts = TBD 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Warm Springs River TBD H 

 Beaver Cr TBD H 

 Shitike Cr TBD H 

 Oak Cr TBD 

 Metolius River TBD 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-3

Number and location of culverts which need to be improved or replaced within steelhead 

populations in the John Day Basin. 

Lower Mainstem John Day River 

Total Culverts = 84 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Bridge Cr Bridge Cr Wheeler 1 H 

Bridge Cr Carroll Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Bridge Cr Keyes Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Bridge Cr Mud Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Bridge Cr Myers Cyn Wheeler 1 L 

Bridge Cr O’Kelly Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Bridge Cr Un Cr ODOT 2 L 

Bridge Cr Un Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Bridge Cr West Br Wheeler 1 L 

Bridge Cr West Br Wheeler 1 M 

Butte Cr Butte Cr ODOT 1 M 

Butte Cr Butte Cr Wheeler 3 M 

Butte Cr Cottonwood Cr ODOT 1 M 

Grass Valley Cyn Demoss Cyn ODOT 1 L 

Grass Valley Cyn Grass Valley Cyn Sherman 4 L 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Alder Cr Wheeler 3 M 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Button Hollow Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Horseshoe Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Indian Hollow Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Kahler Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Parrish Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Parrish Cr Wheeler 1 M 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Un Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Muddy Cr Current Cr WASC 1 L 

Lower JDR Muddy Cr Cove Cr ODOT 1 L 

Lower JDR Muddy Cr Indian Cyn ODOT 1 L 

Lower JDR Muddy Cr John Day GI Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Muddy Cr Lone Pine Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Muddy Cr Pine Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Muddy Cr Un Cr ODOT 2 L 

Lower JDR Service Cr Dry Gulch ODOT 1 L 

Lower JDR Service Cr Dry Hollow Wheeler 1 L 

Lower JDR Service Cr Girds Cr ODOT 3 L 

Lower JDR Service Cr Girds Cr Wheeler 2 L 

Lower JDR Service Cr Little Service Cr ODOT 1 L 

Lower JDR Service Cr Rowe Cr Wheeler 3 L 

Lower JDR Service Cr Rowe Cr Wheeler 2 M 

Rock Cr Birch Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Rock Cr Fred Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Rock Cr Juniper Gulch ODOT 1 L 

Rock Cr Pine Hollow Wheeler 1 M 

Rock Cr Rock Cr ODOT 1 L 

Rock Cr Un Cr Wheeler 1 L 

Thirtymile Cr Thirtymile Cr Wheeler 4 M 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr East Bologna Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-4

Lower JDR Kahler Cr East Bologna trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Davis Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Henry Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Henry Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Burnt Cabin Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Tamarack Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Tamarack Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Alder Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Alder Cr trib USDA-FS 4 H 

Lower JDR Kahler Cr Wheeler Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Rock Cr Stahl Cyn USDA-FS 2 H 

Rock Cr Wineland Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

North Fork John Day River 

Total Culverts = 200 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Lower Camas Cr Wilkins Cr ODOT 1 M 

Lower NF JDR Deer Cr Grant 1 L 

NF JDR Potamus Cr W Fk ODOT 2 M 

Upper NFJD Davis Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper NFJD Trout Cr trib USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper NFJD Crane Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Granite Cr Ten Cent Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Granite Cr W Ten Cent Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Granite Cr Lightning Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Granite Cr Lake Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Granite Cr Rabbit Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Granite Cr Lost Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Granite Cr Granite Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Big Cr Winom Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Big Cr Meadow Cr trib USDA-FS 3 H 

Big Cr Squaw Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Big Cr White Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Big Cr Martin Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Big Cr SF Meadow Cr trib USDA-FS 2 H 

Big Cr Big Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Big Cr White Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Big Cr Meadow Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Big Cr Texas Bar Cr trib USDA-FS 3 H 

Big Cr Texas Bar Cr USDA-FS 5 H 

Big Cr Juniper Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Desolation Cr NF Desolation Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Desolation Cr Sponge Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Desolation Cr Howard Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Desolation Cr SF Desolation Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Desolation Cr Skinner Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Desolation Cr NF Desolation Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Desolation Cr Battle Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Desolation Cr Little Kelsay Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Desolation Cr Bruin Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Desolation Cr Beeman Cr USDA-FS 4 H 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-5

Desolation Cr Junkens Cr USDA-FS 6 H 

Desolation Cr Desolation Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Desolation Cr Park Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Camas Cr Neeves Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Camas Cr SF Cable Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper Camas Cr NF Cable Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Camas Cr Bear Wallow Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Upper Camas Cr Bowman Cr USDA-FS 4 H 

Upper Camas Cr Bowman Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Camas Cr Trib to Bowman Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Camas Cr Frazier Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Upper Camas Cr Frazier Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Camas Cr Butcher Knife Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Camas Cr Camas Cr trib USDA-FS 5 H 

Upper Camas Cr Camas Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper Camas Cr Dry Camas Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Camas Cr Hidaway Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr Silver Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr Dry Five Mile Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr Taylor Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Lower Camas Cr Taylor Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr Tribble Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr Turpentine Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr Five Mile Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr Morsay Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Lower Camas Cr Sugarbowl Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Lower Camas Cr Silver Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr No Name 2 USDA-FS 1 H 

Lower Camas Cr Deer Lick Cr trib USDA-FS 4 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Butcher Bill Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Ditch Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Ditch Cr trib USDA-FS 2 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Horse Heaven Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Jones Canyon USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Long Canyon USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Mallory Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Martin Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Matlock Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Matlock Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Rush Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Thompson Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Thompson Cr trib USDA-FS 2 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Smith Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr WF Meadow Brook USDA-FS 7 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr EF Meadow Brook USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Brush Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr WF Meadow Brook trib USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Pole Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Potamus Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Potamus Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Gilbert Cr trib USDA-FS 3 H 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Little Potamus Cr USDA-FS 1 H 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-6

NF JDR Potamus Cr Little Potamus Cr trib USDA-FS 2 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Deep Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Gilbert Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

NF JDR Potamus Cr Ellis Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Dry Swale Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Wall Cr Swale Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Wall Cr Bear Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Alder Cr trib USDA-FS 4 H 

Wall Cr Skookum Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Swale Cr trib USDA-FS 2 H 

Wall Cr Hog Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Hog Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Keeney Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Little Wall Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Wall Cr Three Trough Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Rough Cyn USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Cat Cyn USDA-FS 2 H 

Wall Cr Indian Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Wall Cr Dark Cyn Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Lost Cyn trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Willow Spring Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Big Wall Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Wall Cr Grassy Butte Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr SF Big Wall Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Keating Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr SF Wall Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Colvin Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Wall Cr Big Wall Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Wall Cr Wilson Cr trib USDA-FS 2 H 

Wall Cr Wilson Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Middle Fork John Day River 

Total Culverts = 242 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Upper MF JDR Bridge Cr ODOT 5 L 

Upper MF JDR Bridge Cr ODOT 7 H 

Upper MF JDR Mill Cr ODOT 1 L 

Upper MF JDR North Fk ODOT 1 H 

Lower MF JDR Barnes Cr ODOT 1 L 

Lower MF JDR Eightmile Cr Grant 1 M 

Lower MF JDR Sixmile Cr Grant 1 M 

Lower MF JDR Twelvemile Cr Grant 1 M 

MF JDR Clear Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Bridge Cr USDA-FS 3 G 

Upper MF JDR Bridge Cr USDA-FS 20 H 

Upper MF JDR Bridge Cr Private 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Bridge Cr trib USDA-FS 3 H 

Upper MF JDR Clear Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Crawford Cr USDA-FS 5 U 

Upper MF JDR Crawford Cr USDA-FS 5 H 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Upper MF JDR Dry Fork Clear Cr USDA-FS 1 U 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-7

Upper MF JDR Dry Fork Clear Cr USDA-FS 5 H 

Upper MF JDR Fly Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Frosty Gulch USDA-FS 3 H 

Upper MF JDR Idaho Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Upper MF JDR Idaho Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Little Phipps Cr USDA-FS 2 U 

Upper MF JDR Little Phipps Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Lunch Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper MF JDR NF Bridge Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Upper MF JDR NF Bridge Cr USDA-FS 9 H 

Upper MF JDR Olmstead Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Upper MF JDR Olmstead Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper MF JDR Papoose Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper MF JDR Phipps Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper MF JDR Road Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper MF JDR Rock Spring USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Savage Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Sawtooth Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR SF Bridge Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper MF JDR Sixteen Gulch USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper MF JDR Squaw Cr USDA-FS 5 U 

Upper MF JDR Squaw Cr USDA-FS 6 H 

Upper MF JDR Summit Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Upper MF JDR Summit Cr USDA-FS 11 H 

Camp Cr Bear Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Beaver Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Big Boulder Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Camp Cr Big Rock Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Blue Gulch USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Butte Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Camp Cr Camp Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr Camp Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Camp Cr trib USDA-FS 4 H 

Camp Cr Caribou Cr USDA-FS 2 U 

Camp Cr Cottonwood Cr USDA-FS 2 U 

Camp Cr Cottonwood Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Cougar Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr Cougar Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Coxie Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Coyote Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr Coyote Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Deadwood Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr Deadwood Cr USDA-FS 4 H 

Camp Cr Deep Cr USDA-FS 2 U 

Camp Cr Deep Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Camp Cr Dry Cr (Sunshine Cr) USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr E Fk Big Cr USDA-FS 4 H 

Camp Cr E Fk Sunshine Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr E Little Boulder Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Eagle Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Camp Cr East Windlass Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Elk Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Granite Boulder Cr USDA-FS 4 H 

Camp Cr Hawkins Cr USDA-FS 1 H 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-8

Camp Cr Lick Cr USDA-FS 2 U 

Camp Cr Lick Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Little Boulder Cr USDA-FS 5 H 

Camp Cr Little Trail Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Lost Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Camp Cr Lost Cr or Pizer Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr MF Sunshine Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Morning Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Mosquito Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Murdock Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Camp Cr Myrtle Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr Myrtle Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr N Fk Elk Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr N Fk Camp Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr N Fk Camp Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Placer Gulch USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Porky Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Ragged Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Ruby Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr Sulpher Cr 2 USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Sunshine Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Swamp Gulch USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr Tin Cup Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Camp Cr Vincent Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr Vincent Cr USDA-FS 4 H 

Camp Cr Vinegar Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Vinegar Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr W Fk Lick Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Camp Cr W Fk Lick Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Camp Cr Whiskey Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Camp Cr Windlass Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Camp Cr Wray Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Big Cr Slide Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Long Cr Dry Fk Clear Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Long Cr Jugow Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Long Cr Long Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Long Cr Long Cr USDA-FS 2 U 

Long Cr S Fk Long Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

South Fork John Day River 

Total Culverts = 74 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Lower SF JDR Oliver Cr Grant 1 L 

Lower SF JDR Smoky Cr Grant 1 M 

Middle SF JDR Pine Cr Grant 1 L 

Middle SF JDR Poison Cr Grant 1 L 

Middle SF JDR Un Cr Grant 1 L 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Upper SF JDR Antelope Cr Grant 1 L 

Upper SF JDR Lewis Cr Grant 2 L 

Upper SF JDR Lewis Cr Grant 1 M 

Upper SF JDR Venator Cr Grant 1 M 

Upper SF JDR Cougar Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Murderers Cr Basin Cr USDA-FS 2 H 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-9

Murderers Cr Buck Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Murderers Cr Charlie Mack Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Murderers Cr Corral Cr USDA-FS 2 U 

Murderers Cr Corral Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Murderers Cr Crazy Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Murderers Cr Dans Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Murderers Cr Dead Injun Cr USDA-FS 6 H 

Murderers Cr Deer Cr USDA-FS 7 H 

Murderers Cr Duncan Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Murderers Cr E Fk Deer Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Murderers Cr Lemon Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Murderers Cr Murderers Cr USDA-FS 5 H 

Murderers Cr Murderers Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Murderers Cr Orange Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Murderers Cr Oregon Mine Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Murderers Cr SF Deer Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Murderers Cr SF Murderers Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Murderers Cr SF Murderers Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Murderers Cr Sugar Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Murderers Cr Tex Cr USDA-FS 6 H 

Murderers Cr Thorn Cr USDA-FS 8 H 

Murderers Cr Vester Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Murderers Cr White Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper Mainstem John Day River 

Total Culverts = 120 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Beech Cr Beech Cr ODOT 5 H 

Beech Cr Beech Cr Grant 1 H 

Beech Cr Cottonwood Cr ODOT 1 H 

Beech Cr McClellen Cr Grant 1 M 

Beech Cr Thompson Cr Grant 1 L 

Beech Cr Un Cr Grant 1 L 

Beech Cr Warm Springs Cr ODOT 1 L 

Big Cr Deep Cr Grant 1 L 

Canyon Cr Alder GI Grant 1 L 

Canyon Cr East Gl Cr Grant 1 L 

Canyon Cr Sheep Gulch ODOT 1 L 

Canyon Cr Vance Cr ODOT 1 L 

Cottonwood Cr Wiley Cr ODOT 1 H 

Laycock Cr Coal Pit Cr Grant 1 L 

Laycock Cr Harper Cr Grant 1 M 

Laycock Cr Ingle Cr Grant 1 M 

Laycock Cr Luce Cr ODOT 1 L 

Laycock Cr Luce Cr Grant 1 L 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Mountain Cr Marshall Cr ODOT 1 L 

Mountain Cr Thorn Hollow ODOT 1 L 

Mountain Cr Tubb Cr ODOT 1 L 

Mountain Cr Un Cr ODOT 2 L 

Mountain Cr Whiskey Cr ODOT 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Cow Cr Grant 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Dixie Cr Grant 1 M 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-10

Strawberry Cr Dog Cr Grant 3 L 

Strawberry Cr Dog Cr Grant 2 M 

Strawberry Cr Grub Cr Grant 5 L 

Strawberry Cr Gwyn Cr Grant 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Hall Cr ODOT 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Little Indian Cr Grant 2 L 

Strawberry Cr Little Pine Cr ODOT 1 H 

Strawberry Cr Little Pine Cr Grant 2 L 

Strawberry Cr Pine Cr ODOT 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Pine Cr Grant 2 L 

Strawberry Cr Slyfe Cr Grant 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Spring Cr Grant 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Squaw Cr Grant 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Un Cr Grant 1 L 

Strawberry Cr Un Cr ODOT 2 L 

Strawberry Cr West Fork Grant 1 M 

Upper JDR Dans Cr Grant 1 M 

Upper JDR Graham Cr Grant 1 L 

Upper JDR Jeff Davis Cr Grant 1 L 

Upper JDR John Day R Grant 1 H 

Upper JDR John Day R Grant 1 M 

Upper JDR Un Cr Grant 3 L 

Upper JDR Winegar Gl Grant 1 L 

Cottonwood Cr Day Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper JDR Call Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper JDR Dans Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper JDR Deardorff Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper JDR Isham Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Upper JDR John Day R USDA-FS 5 H 

Upper JDR Mossy Gulch USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper JDR NF Reynolds Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Upper JDR Reynolds Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Upper JDR Roberts Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Upper JDR SF Deardorff Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Canyon Cr Canyon Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Canyon Cr Crazy Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Canyon Cr MF Canyon Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Strawberry Cr Dixie Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Strawberry Cr Hall Cr USDA-FS 3 H 

Strawberry Cr John Day R USDA-FS 1 H 

Strawberry Cr Onion Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Strawberry Cr Strawberry Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Strawberry Cr W Fk Little Indian Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Beech Cr Bear Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Beech Cr Bear Cr trib USDA-FS 1 H 

Beech Cr E Fk Beech Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Beech Cr E Fk Beech Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Beech Cr Lake Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Beech Cr Tinker Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Laycock Cr Riely Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Laycock Cr Umatilla Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

Fields Cr Belshaw Cr USDA-FS 1 U 

Fields Cr Buck Cabin Cr USDA-FS 2 H 

Fields Cr Fields Cr USDA-FS 1 U 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-11

Fields Cr Fields Cr USDA-FS 6 H 

Fields Cr Last Cr USDA-FS 1 H 

 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 

G-12

Number and location of culverts which need to be improved or replaced within steelhead 

populations in the Umatilla River. This is an incomplete list as comprehensive culvert 

inventories have not been conducted. 

Umatilla River 

Total Culverts = 25 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Johnson Cr. 

(Butter Trib-RM 0.3) 

 

1 M 

Bridge Cr (West BirchRM 2.0)  

1 H 

 Jungle/Windy Spr 

(Pearson-RM 0.1) 

 

1 L 

Whitman Spr (RM 0.1) 1 L 

Red Elk Can. (RM 0.2) 1 L 

Minthorn Spr (RM 0.1) 1 L 

Un Trib to SF Umatilla 

at RM 1.5 (RM 0.1) 

 

1 M 

Un Trib to Umatilla R. 

at RM 81.2 (RM 0.1) 

 

1 L 

Twomile Cr (RM 1.250 1 L 

 Butter Cr USDA-FS 6 H 

 Willow Cr USDA-FS 6 H 

 Umatilla R. USDA-FS 2 H 

 Umatilla R. USDA-FS 1 H 

 Meacham Cr USDA-FS 1 H 
Appendix G 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

G-13

Number and location of culverts which need to be improved or replaced within steelhead 

populations in the Walla Walla River. This is an incomplete list as comprehensive culvert 

inventories have not been conducted. 

Walla Walla River 

Total Culverts = 22 

5th Field HUC Stream Ownership Number of 

Culverts 

Priority 

Pine Cr at Johnson Rd 1 M 

Pine Cr at Hwy 11 1 M 

Pine Cr at Pine Cr Rd 1 M 

Dry Cr (Upper Dry Cr 

Rd) 

 

1 M 

Little Dry Cr (Winn Rd) 1 M 

Dr Cr (upstream of 

Sapolil Rd) 

 

1 M 

East Little Walla Walla 

(Locust Rd) 

 

1 M 

East Little Walla Walla 

(Appleton Rd) 

 

1 M 

East Little Walla Walla 

(Crockett Rd) 

 

1 M 

East Little Walla Walla 

(Ballou Rd) 

 

1 M 

East Little Walla Walla 

(Stateline Rd) 

 

1 M 

West Little Walla 

Walla (Winesap Rd) 

 

1 M 

West Little Walla 

Walla (Appleton Rd) 

 

1 M 

West Little Walla 

Walla (Sunquist Rd) 

 

1 M 

West Little Walla 

Walla (Stateline Rd) 

 

1 M 

Middle Branch Mud Cr 

(Triangle Rd) 

 

1 M 

Middle Branch Mud Cr 

(County Rd 332) 

 

2 M 

Titus Cr (at mouth) 1 M 

 Birch Cr (Powerline 

Rd) 

 

1 H 

Couse Cr (gravel pit 

entrance RM 1.1) 

 

1 H 

Cup Gulch (NF Walla 

Walla River Rd) 

 

1 M 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-1

APPENDIX H

Management Actions Effectiveness

and Model Data and Assumptions
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-2

Management Actions Effectiveness and Model Data 

and Assumptions

This appendix is presented in two parts. Part 1 provides action effectiveness assumptions and 

related factor scalars used in analyzing actions. Part 2 provides a series of graphic reports that 

give additional information about the predicted outcomes of the subbasin habitat scenarios 

analyzed in Section 10. These graphic reports are extracted from output produced by EDT. 

Part 1: Action Effectiveness Assumptions 

Part 1 consists of fifteen tables that describe action effectiveness assumptions and related factor 

scalars used in analyzing the subbasin habitat actions, as well as, the life stage specific survival 

rate assumptions applied to the component life stages from smolt leaving the subbasin to adult 

return to the subbasin. See Section 10 of the report for a full description of how the assumptions 

and scalars are applied. The tables are: 

H-1. List of habitat actions analyzed within the subbasins. 

H-2. Subbasins where habitat actions were designated to be applied. 

H-3. Action effectiveness assumptions and levels applied in analysis. 

H-4. Action implementation intensity assumptions and levels applied in analysis. 

H-5. Action effectiveness lag scalars applied to habitat actions. 

H-6. Action implementation schedule scalars at 25 years applied to habitat actions. 

H-7. Action implementation schedule scalars at 100 years applied to habitat actions. 

H-8. Attribute scalars applied to habitat actions. 

H-9. Definitions of freshwater habitat attributes shown in Table H-8. 

H-10.Out-of-basin survival rates in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current (C) and 

prospective future action scenarios for Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead. 

H-11.Out-of-basin survival rates in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current (C) and 

prospective future action scenarios for Deschutes River Eastside and Westside summer 

steelhead. 

H-12.Out-of-basin survival rates in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current (C) and 

prospective future action scenarios for John Day River summer steelhead populations. 

H-13.Out-of-basin survival rates in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current (C) and 

prospective future action scenarios for Umatilla River summer steelhead. 

H-14.Out-of-basin survival rates in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current (C) and 

prospective future action scenarios for Walla Walla River summer steelhead. 

Tributary Habitat Action Effectiveness Assumptions 

Tributary habitat actions, locations, intensity, time scalars, and effectiveness scalars are 

presented in tables H-1 – H-9. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-3

Table H-1. Habitat actions analyzed within Oregon subbasins for their effects on population performance of 

Mid-Columbia steelhead. See Section 9 for further descriptive details of actions. 

(Table H-1. List of actions.) 

Strategy Action Description 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

Acquisition/conservation Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or 

conservation measures. 

Protect rare functioning habitats Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats. 

BMPs to conserve eco processes Consistently apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 

existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological 

processes. 

Cooperative Agreements Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements. 

Special mgmt designations Special management designations on public lands. 

Increase wild-scenic status Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status. 

Protect access to key habitats Protect access to key habitats. 

Outreach to users and managers Conduct outreach to resource users and managers (resulting in 

improved management practices). 

Public lands protection Continue existing protections and/or increase protection of 

Federal lands; implement Forest Practices Act and 

PACFISH/INFISH. 

Waterway setbacks Establish setbacks to protect waterways from forest 

management, agricultural activities, and other land use practices 

that would disrupt ecosystem function. 

Enforce floodplain regs Review, modify and enforce existing land use planning 

documents and ordinances pertaining to riparian and floodplain 

management to better address habitat and water quality issues. 

Natural Area Overlay Zone Incorporate priority habitat areas into the Natural Area Overlay 

Zone provision of the Umatilla County Development Ordinance. 

 

Legislate priority areas Explore opportunities to incorporate priority areas into state 

legislation (resulting in improved management practices). 

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

Barrier removal Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts 

and irrigation structures. 

Add irrigation screening Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions. 

Pelton Round Butte passage Restore passage at Pelton Round Butte Complex in the 

Deschutes river system. 

Upgrade irrigation screening Replace screens that do not meet criteria. 

Reduce push up dams Remove or minimize use of push up dams. 

Fish ladder construction Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill 

dams, or remove the barrier. 

 Maintain passage facilities Operate and maintain fish passage facilities to meet criteria. 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

Reconnect floodplain Reconnect floodplains to channels. 

Reconnect side channels Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream 

channels. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-4

(Table H-1. List of actions.) 

Strategy Action Description 

Reintroduce beaver Reintroduce beaver in suitable habitat. 

Restore wet meadows Restore wet meadows. 

Dike removal Remove dikes and levies. 

 Manage beavers Manage beaver population and educate public. 

4. Restore degraded channel structure/complexity 

Restore natural channel form Restore natural channel form. 

Large wood enhancement Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in 

streambeds. 

Add structure Increase instream habitat through manual placement of 

structures. 

Stabilize streambanks Stabilize streambanks. 

Build pool weirs Construct rock and log weirs to create pool habitats or elevate 

incised channels. 

BMP bridge maintenance Implement bridge maintenance BMPs. 

 

LWD education Educate landowners on importance of large woody debris 

(LWD)(resulting in improved LWD management practices). 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

Restore riparian communities Restore natural riparian communities. 

Improve grazing practices Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery (and 

implement). 

Eradicate invasive plants Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas. 

Fencing Install fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas. 

Off-stream livestock watering Install off-stream livestock watering. 

Riparian plantings Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate. 

Increase riparian shading Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate. 

No cultivation buffer zones Develop no-cultivation riparian buffer on agricultural lands and 

establish riparian setbacks for structures in areas where activities 

could upset riparian function. 

Maintain RHCAs on USFS lands Maintain existing widths of riparian habitat conservation areas 

(RHCAs) on USFS lands. 

Remove riparian roads Close, remove, and restore riparian road prisms. 

 Riparian protection Protect high quality riparian habitats and unstable areas. 

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

Ag water conservation Implement agricultural water conservation measures. 

Improve irrigation conveyance Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency. 

Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run Finish piping Orchard Ridge and Wolf Run diversions. 

Urban conservation Implement urban conservation measures. 

Convert water rights Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream. 

Regulate water withdrawals Monitor/regulate water withdrawals. 

Water retention structures Water retention structures. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-5

(Table H-1. List of actions.) 

Strategy Action Description 

Increase pool habitat (beav ponds) Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds). 

Floodplain aquifer recharge Floodplain aquifer recharge. 

H2O rights transfer downstream Downstream water rights transfers. 

Water storage investigate Investigate feasibility of water storage or exchange to improve 

instream flows for steelhead (assumed to improve water 

conservation/management). 

No new H2O appropriation Close areas to appropriation of new water uses. 

Criteria for new H2O appropriation Set criteria to protect flows for fish habitat from new 

appropriations. 

Enhance hyporheic flows Enhance hyporheic flows and spring inputs. 

Recharge shallow aquifers Implement shallow aquifer recharge. 

Aquifer storage & recovery Aquifer storage and recovery. 

Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and 

II 

Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II. The Umatilla 

Basin Project Act, passed by Congress in 1988, allows irrigators 

to exchange Umatilla River water for Columbia River water. Two 

phases of the Act have been completed and a third phase has 

been proposed. This action that addresses Phases 1 and II 

would continue the operation of the project under these phases. 

Umatilla Basin Project Phase III Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phase III. This action would 

provide a substantial increase of Umatilla River water to remain 

instream compared to the action associated with just Phases I 

and II. 

 

ISWRs File for additional instream water rights (ISWRs) (assumed to be 

successful). While instream water rights have been established 

on many of the important spawning and rearing stream in the 

Umatilla and Walla Walla subbasins, some have not. Where 

important spawning and rearing streams have not been protected 

by instream water rights, instream flow studies would be 

conducted and instream water rights applied for (it is assumed 

that some would be granted). 

7. Improve degraded water quality 

Manage irrigation return flow Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream 

temperatures. 

Measures to improve DO Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved 

oxygen levels. 

Reduce chemical pollution Reduce chemical pollution inputs. 

Implement Ag WQP Implement an Agricultural Water Quality Plan. (Oregon’s 

agricultural water quality plans created by Senate Bill 1010 are 

locally-driven area-wide plans addressing agricultural water 

quality problems while providing a regulatory backstop. They 

provide landowner flexibility in solving local water quality issues. 

Enforcement is not a primary method for assuring success, 

although compliance is a component. The premise is that when 

landowners are given opportunities to address issues, and 

offered technical assistance, success will generally follow. This 

approach has proven successful in some subbasins (see 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/news/0407aq.shtml) 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-6

(Table H-1. List of actions.) 

Strategy Action Description 

TMDL monitoring Continue TMDL monitoring. A TMDL is the calculated pollutant 

amount that a waterbody can receive and still meet Oregon water 

quality standards. The process for building a plan to improve 

water quality starts when a waterbody appears on DEQ’s 303(d) 

list, which lists waterbodies that do not meet water quality 

standards. Federal law requires that streams, rivers, lakes and 

estuaries that appear on the 303(d) list be managed to meet 

state water quality standards. Plans to restore streams and rivers 

to water quality standards are developed by governmental 

agencies in cooperation with landowners. Agriculture issues are 

addressed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture working with 

landowners (under Senate Bill 1010 -- see Ag Water Quality plan 

above). Private and state forest issues are addressed the 

Oregon Department of Forestry (through the Forest Practices 

Act). Federal agencies (such the U.S. Forest Service or the 

Bureau of Land Management) have responsibility for federal 

lands. Urban and rural areas not covered by other state or 

federal agencies are addressed by cities and counties, working 

with local watershed councils. 

Reduce mine discharge toxicants Address contamination from mine related discharge. 

Animal feeding BMPs Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations. 

Point source pollution controls Address point sources of water pollution. 

H2O quality mgmt plans Implement water quality management plans (it is not specified 

that these are Agricultural Water Quality Plans but it is 

presumed; this is kept separate from the Agricultural Water 

Quality Plan due to uncertainty in the type of plan and in 

implementation). 

Pest mgmt plans for fruit growers Implement pest management plans for fruit growers. Note: it is 

assumed that this action would entail an integrated pest 

management program comparable to the action below specified 

as "Implement IFPnet plans" to be implemented in Fifteenmile 

subbasin. 

Municipal stormwater mgmt Improve municipal stormwater management and treatment. 

Waterway alteration permitting Permit waterway alteration activities and enforce rules. 

“Waterway alteration” means any action that will result in 

excavation, dredging, filling, rechannelization, construction, or 

any other type of modification of an aquatic habitat area occupied 

by ESA-listed species that will affect the conservation value of 

that habitat. This action is only relevant for analysis if other 

actions are to be analyzed that consist of waterway alternations, 

in which case, the action would serve as a measure of protection. 

Permitting can require compensation or mitigation but would be 

assumed to only offset any take. 

 

Permitting for H2O quality activities Permit and enforce actions that could affect water quality. This 

action is aimed at improving permitting/enforcement of land/water 

use activities that could impact water quality. This action is only 

relevant in the present analysis if other actions (such as buildout) are to be analyzed that would degrade water quality, in 

which case the action would serve protect. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-7

(Table H-1. List of actions.) 

Strategy Action Description 

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

Convert till farming Provide incentives to farmers to convert to no till farming; target 

achieving 95% conversion to no till farming in specified areas. 

Convert to perennial crops Convert to perennial crops/vegetation. 

Implement IFPnet plans The project encourages growers in Wasco County (Fifteenmile 

Creek subbasin) to reduce the use of broad-spectrum OP 

pesticides and replace them with new generation, less toxic 

pesticides. It utilizes methods referred to as integrated fruit 

management. Using a web-based interface, IFP project 

participants use the degree-day models and data to make better 

decisions and precise timed application of new generation, less 

toxic pesticides. Note: action should more correctly be placed 

under Strategy 7. 

Improve/remove forest roads Upgrade or remove problem forest roads. 

Reforest/fuels management Promote fuel management. 

Upland demo projects Initiate demonstration projects (assumed to be instrumental in 

improving upland lands management). 

BMPS to reduce soil erosion Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion. 

Remove junipers Remove junipers. 

Restore native upland plants Restore native upland plants. 

Invasive plant mgmt & junipers Manage vegetation, including juniper removal. 

BMPs on land uses Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, road 

management and agricultural practices. 

CREP & CCRP buffers Implement Continuous Conservation Reserve Program and 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP and 

CCRP) buffers; voluntary, non-competitive, programs for 

agricultural landowners providing financial incentives. 

 

Outreach to upland users Conduct outreach to resource users and managers (assumed to 

lead to improvements in uplands lands management). 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-8

Table H-2. Subbasins where habitat actions were designated to be applied. See Section 9 for further 

descriptive details of actions. 

(Table H-2. Subbasins where actions were applied.) 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

 Acquisition/conservation X X X X X 

 Protect rare functioning habitats X X X X 

 BMPs to conserve eco processes X X X X X 

 Cooperative Agreements X X 

 Special mgmt designations X X 

 Increase wild-scenic status X 

 Protect access to key habitats X 

 Outreach to users and managers X 

 Public lands protection X X 

 Waterway setbacks X X 

 Enforce floodplain regs X X 

 Natural Area Overlay Zone X X 

 Legislate priority areas X X 

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

 Barrier removal X X X X X 

 Add irrigation screening X X X X 

 Pelton Round Butte passage X 

Upgrade irrigation screening X X X X 

 Reduce push up dams X 

 Fish ladder construction (addressed with barrier removal) 

 Maintain passage facilities X X X X X 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

 Reconnect floodplain X X X X X 

 Reconnect side channels X X X X X 

 Reintroduce beaver X X X 

 Restore wet meadows X 

 Dike removal X X 

 Manage beavers X 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-9

(Table H-2. Subbasins where actions were applied.) 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

4. Restore degraded channel structure/complexity

 Restore natural channel form X X X X X 

 Large wood enhancement X X X X X 

 Add structure X X 

 Stabilize streambanks X X X X X 

 Build pool weirs X X 

 BMP bridge maintenance X 

 LWD education X 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

 Restore riparian communities X X X X X 

 Improve grazing practices X X X X X 

 Eradicate invasive plants X X 

 Fencing X X X X 

 Off-stream livestock watering X X 

 Riparian plantings X 

 Increase riparian shading X X 

 No cultivation buffer zones X X 

 Maintain RHCAs on USFS lands X 

 Remove riparian roads X X 

 Riparian protection X 

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

 Ag water conservation X X X X 

 Improve irrigation conveyance X X X X 

 Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run X 

 Urban conservation X 

 Convert water rights X X X X X 

 Regulate water withdrawals X X X X X 

 Water retention structures X 

 Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) X 

 Floodplain aquifer recharge X 

 H2O rights transfer downstream X X 

 Water storage investigate X 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-10

(Table H-2. Subbasins where actions were applied.) 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

 No new H2O appropriation X 

 Criteria for new H2O appropriation X 

 Enhance hyporheic flows X 

 Recharge shallow aquifers X 

 Aquifer storage & recovery X 

 Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II X 

 Umatilla Basin Project Phase III X 

 ISWRs X X 

7. Improve degraded water quality 

 Manage irrigation return flow X X X 

 Measures to improve DO X X 

 Reduce chemical pollution X X X 

 Implement Ag WQP X X 

 TMDL monitoring X X 

 Reduce mine discharge toxicants X 

 Animal feeding BMPs X 

 Point source pollution controls X X 

 H2O quality mgmt plans X X 

 Pest mgmt plans for fruit growers X 

 Municipal stormwater mgmt X 

 Waterway alteration permitting X 

 Permitting for H2O quality activities X 

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

 Convert till farming X X X 

 Convert to perennial crops X X 

 Implement IFPnet plans X 

 Improve/remove forest roads X X X X X 

 Reforest/fuels management X X 

 Upland demo projects X X X X 

 BMPS to reduce soil erosion X X 

 Remove junipers X 

 Restore native upland plants X X X X 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-11

(Table H-2. Subbasins where actions were applied.) 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

 Invasive plant mgmt & junipers X 

 BMPs on land uses X X X 

 CREP & CCRP buffers X 

 Outreach to upland users X 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-12

Table H-3A and B. Action effectiveness assumptions and levels applied in analysis (A) and corresponding 

effectiveness values assigned to each action with rationale/comments (B). See Section 10 for how effectiveness 

values were applied. 

Table H-3A. Action effectiveness levels. 

Effectiveness 

level Definition Effectiveness 

1 Very high 0.80 

2 Moderately high 0.56 

3 Moderate 0.32 

4 Low 0.08 

5 Negligible 0.01 

6 No effect 0.00 

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

 Acquisition/conservation 0.80 Land set-asides can be expected to return to their natural condition over 

time, passively restoring adjacent aquatic habitats. Maximum effectiveness 

should be very high unless constraints have been imposed by previous land 

uses. Such an effectiveness level assumes a sufficient scale of 

implementation to affect an entire stream reach. The action would also have 

very high effectiveness for protection purposes. 

Protect rare functioning 

habitats 

0.08 It is assumed that rare functioning habitats are very limited in size and 

distribution. Therefore, actions to restore such habitats would likely be limited 

by being able to fully address the suite of conditions that create such 

habitats, providing only low effectiveness. Protection of such habitats against 

further degradation would be more effective than in restoring them (protection 

against further degradation would be analyzed if build-out actions were to be 

addressed). 

BMPs to conserve eco 

processes 

0.32 Best management practices to conserve ecological processes within 

watersheds are generally known and further improvements in understanding 

can be expected in the near future as there are on-going studies to address 

this issue. These practices would be aimed at root causes of how ecological 

processes have been altered by land use (Beechie and Bolton 1999). Bolton 

et al. (2005) suggest that such practices will be beneficial in first conserving, 

then restoring natural processes, especially in watersheds where 

urbanization is not increasing. A moderate effectiveness is reasonable to 

expect. 

Cooperative Agreements 0.08 Cooperative Agreements involving voluntary agreements between private 

land owners and governments can address a variety of issues. Lack of 

specificity here is assumed to provide a generally low potential for 

effectiveness that addressing wide scale issues. 

 Special mgmt 

designations 

0.32 Special management designations can specify types of management that 

can occur on lands, here taken to mean federal lands (no actions in the 

Oregon plan call for special designations on state lands). Such designations 

can specify areas of critical environmental concern or other types of 

designations, and limit types of management practices allowed. Moderate 

effectiveness is assumed because the type of special management 

designation has not been specified. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-13

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

 Increase wild-scenic 

status 

0.32 Wild and scenic status limits types of management practices allowed but not 

all activities. This status would provide for passive restoration within the 

areas specified. A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed given that 

various types of management practices can still occur. 

Protect access to key 

habitats 

-- Issue is covered completely by other actions as this action was described; 

not given an effectiveness value here. 

Outreach to users and 

managers 

0.08 Modest results as a separate action are expected from this because 

education can be expected to accompany other line item actions. Low 

effectiveness assumed. 

Public lands protection 0.32 This action continues previously enacted protection policies/practices on 

public lands. The action can be expected to have high value to protect 

against further degradation. For restoration purposes, the action would be 

passive, which would continue to maintain or improve conditions on certain 

public lands; moderate effectiveness assumed. 

Waterway setbacks 0.56 This action would establish setbacks (like buffers) along selected waterways 

to minimize active land uses such as agriculture and forest harvest. When 

enforced, setbacks can be particularly effective at protecting and restoring 

riparian and floodplain processes. Moderately high effectiveness is assumed. 

Enforce floodplain regs 0.32 Action calls for making floodplain regulations more effective than they are 

currently and providing for enforcement. Action is assumed to be only 

moderately effective because of the on-going need that will occur to maintain 

some level of protection against flooding and stream channel instability in 

areas where roads, bridges, and private lands exist. 

Natural Area Overlay 

Zone 

0.08 This provision of the Umatilla County Development Ordinance was 

developed to protect and preserve ecologically and scientifically significant 

natural areas; it was developed as an add on, being added to other 

provisions that addressed protection of riparian zones and stream setbacks. 

It was assigned a low effectiveness value because it is an add on to other 

provisions that already address similar issues. It would be given greater 

values for protection benefits, but here would serve mainly as a passive 

restoration action. 

 Legislate priority areas 0.01 This action would be mainly investigative, considering new legislation to 

identify and protect priority habitat issues. As such it is considered here to 

have a negligible effect because of uncertainty it what it would address; many 

other avenues are considered to be in place or proposed for action to 

address such issues. 

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

Barrier removal >0.80 Where barriers are identified in the actions to be fixed or removed, it is 

assumed that passage will be provided in full. 

Add irrigation screening 0.80 Adding irrigation screening where absent will almost always correct any 

screening related mortalities at the immediate site. Very high effectiveness is 

assumed. 

Pelton Round Butte 

passage 

0.75-

0.99 

Don Ratliff of PGE provided passage values to be applied: 75% for 

downstream juvenile passage and 99% for upstream adult passage. 

Upgrade irrigation 

screening 

0.80 Where need for upgrading irrigation screening exists, it is assumed these 

screens would be outdated. It is assumed that such upgrading would be 

highly effective. 

Reduce push up dams 0.56 Concerted efforts to reduce or eliminate push up dams can be assumed to be 

moderately high if measures are so enacted. Even with such measures, their 

effectiveness would be limited because of likely difficulties in fully enforcing 

or requiring their elimination. 

Fish ladder construction -- This measure is addressed as part of barrier removal in the analysis. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-14

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

 Maintain passage facilities 0.00 Maintenance of fish passage facilities is assumed to occur in the analysis. A 

separate action that specifies maintenance is not considered to add to 

effectiveness. 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

 Reconnect floodplain 0.32 Measures to reconnect floodplain channels can be limited by how channels 

and floodplains have been altered by past land use practices. Channel 

incision, for example, can be difficult to reverse. A moderate level of 

effectiveness is assumed. 

Reconnect side channels 0.32 Measures to reconnect side channels can be limited by how channels and 

floodplains have been altered by past land use practices. Channel incision, 

for example, can be difficult to reverse. A moderate level of effectiveness is 

assumed. 

Reintroduce beaver 0.56 Beavers historically were a significant factor in the creation and maintenance 

of channel structure and off-channel habitats in some types of streams 

(Naiman et al. 1988). When reintroduced, and managed, they can be an 

effective way of restoring some types of habitats and natural channel form. 

Moderately high effectiveness is assumed. 

Restore wet meadows 0.32 Wet meadows are a key element in some streams for helping to maintain 

flows and in providing some aspects of off-channel habitats in some seasons. 

A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed where such sites can be 

targeted for restoration, where land use practices can be effectively 

controlled. Effectiveness is not regarded as high because of constraining 

factors in the drainage that would tend to limit the degree that completely 

restored channel function could occur where impacts have been high in the 

past. 

Dike removal 0.56 This action would have a comparable effectiveness to waterway setbacks. 

When implemented, dike removal can be particularly effective at restoring 

riparian and floodplain processes. Moderately high effectiveness is assumed. 

Limitations would exist in watersheds where development has occurred. 

 Manage beavers 0.56 Beavers historically were a significant factor in the creation and maintenance 

of channel structure and off-channel habitats in some types of streams 

(Naiman et al. 1988). When reintroduced, and managed, they can be an 

effective way of restoring some types of habitats and natural channel form. 

Moderately high effectiveness is assumed. 

4. Restore degraded channel structure/complexity 

Restore natural channel 

form 

0.32 Measures to natural channel form can be limited by how channels and 

floodplains have been altered by past land use practices. Channel incision, 

for example, can be difficult to reverse. A moderate level of effectiveness is 

assumed. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-15

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

Large wood enhancement 0.32 Enhancement of large wood can have a significant effect on channel form 

and function, in both small and large streams. The ability of large wood to so 

function depends in part on its abundance, size, and type of wood, and on 

the size and geomorphology of the stream system (Maser and Sedell 1994; 

Collins et al. 2003; Fox 2001; Fox 2003). When wood can be completely 

restored to its pre-development level, it can very effectively restore channel 

conditions, though not necessarily to pre-development conditions due to 

other operating factors (such as change in hydrograph, sediment loading, 

floodplain development, etc.). However, wood enhancement is often limited 

by availability, size classes available, ability to locate properly, and other 

logistical difficulties. Additionally, wood enhancement is usually not 

maintained, hence it can be naturally depleted without future recruitment. A 

moderate level of effectiveness is assumed. 

Add structure 0.32 Similar limitations exist in adding structure of various kinds to streams as for 

large wood enhancement. A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed. 

Stabilize streambanks 0.32 Stream bank stabilization is affected by various factors besides just what can 

be affected at specific sites at the time of implementation. Success is often 

determined by factors occurring at the landscape level. Well designed 

stabilization projects can be quite effective, however. Overall, a moderate 

level of effectiveness is assumed. 

Build pool weirs 0.08 Success of actions that construct pool weirs are often strongly affected by 

factors outside the control of managers, such as those occurring at the 

landscape scale (Beechie and Bolton 1999). Such structures often fail. Well 

designed structures do sometimes persist and can promote creation of longterm habitats that are desired. Overall, a low level of effectiveness would be 

more normal; a low level is assumed here. 

BMP bridge maintenance 0.01 BMPs to maintain bridges, their footings, and adjacent stream banks are 

needed to reduce effects of bridges on surrounding aquatic habitats. Overall, 

a negligible effectiveness is assumed, however, due the limited scope of their 

effect on stream habitat. 

 LWD education 0.32 Maintenance and protection of large wood recruited to streams is often highly 

dependent on the level of scavenging that occurs for wood from active flood 

channels by local residents. In some areas, wood recruited to streams is very 

rapidly removed by local residents. Reasons for removal are use for firewood 

and a belief that wood removal will promote stream stability. Well designed, 

concerted efforts to educate local residents about the importance of 

maintaining in-stream wood is assumed to be moderately effective--such 

effectiveness could only be achieved by a long-term commitment to address 

the issue.\ 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

 Restore riparian 

communities 

0.80 It is assumed here that restoring riparian communities over a substantially 

long reach can be very effective when various conditions can be controlled 

(such as controlling grazing----Platts 1991) and where natural watershed 

processes are largely intact (such as having a normative or natural 

hydrograph--Naiman et al. 2005). Intensive efforts to restore riparian 

conditions can produce significant progress towards predevelopment 

conditions in relatively few years in some ecoregions (Opperman and 

Merenlender 2004). This level of effectiveness is assumed to be applicable to 

an eastside ecoregion. With an intensive application to restore conditions, 

and in conjunction with activities that simultaneously restore the natural 

hydrograph, effectiveness is assumed to be very high. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-16

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

 Improve grazing practices 0.32 Grazing practices can be managed to reduce impacts on sediment loading, 

temperature, stream bank and channel stability, and other aspects of stream 

habitat (Elmore 1992). A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed for a 

comprehensive program of improving grazing practices. 

Eradicate invasive plants 0.08 Invasive plants are widespread in all Northwest watersheds. Some species 

are changing the structure of stream channels due to their prolific growth. An 

intensive effort to control invasives would have very limited success due to 

their extensive distributions and productivity. A low level of effectiveness is 

assumed. 

Fencing 0.80 Enclosures, such as by fencing, can have significant success in restoring 

riparian areas within eastside streams (Opperman and Merenlender 2004). A 

similar level of effectiveness is assumed here as described for "Restore 

riparian communities", i.e., very high effectiveness. 

 Off-stream livestock 

watering 

0.32 Off-stream livestock watering can significantly aid in reducing grazing 

pressure immediately adjacent to streams. A moderate level of effectiveness 

is assumed with a concerted effort to achieve the objective. 

Riparian plantings 0.32 Riparian plantings can accelerate and promote restoration of riparian areas. 

However, they would have limited success without on-going efforts to control 

grazing. A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed. 

Increase riparian shading 0.32 This action is like that of "Riparian plantings." A moderate level of 

effectiveness is assumed. 

No cultivation buffer zones 0.56 In areas where farming occurs, no cultivation buffer zones will be effective at 

re-establishing riparian communities. A moderately high level of effectiveness 

is assumed where such restrictions are maintained; some level of impact 

could remain present due to other activities besides cultivation. 

Maintain RHCAs on USFS 

lands 

0.32 The action would maintain existing widths on USFW riparian habitat 

conservation areas, which provide some level of protection while allowing for 

grazing and other management activities. The level of effectiveness for this 

action is considered moderate, as certain types of impacts would persist, but 

conditions in the riparian area would be improved over existing conditions. 

Remove riparian roads 0.56 This action would remove riparian riparian roads, which are highly intrusive to 

riparian corridors, adding sediment, intercepting and diverting groundwater 

seeps, and impeding other floodplain functions. Effectiveness at restoring 

certain conditions within the floodplain corridor of this action is deemed 

moderately high. 

 Riparian protection 0.32 This action would afford protection to some types of riparian areas and any 

unstable areas associated with them. The action would also provide passive 

restoration, which would help recover any degraded aspects of the riparian 

area. It is considered to be moderately effective as it is unclear what types of 

activities might continue to be allowed. 

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

Ag water conservation 0.32 This action would implement certain conservation measures on agricultural 

uses of water to the extent that opportunities exist. In areas where such 

opportunities do exist, a moderate level of effectiveness is assumed. Actual 

realized effectiveness would be limited by opportunities. 

 Improve irrigation 

conveyance 

0.56 This action would target irrigation conveyance systems to improve their 

efficiency and reduce water wastage. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-17

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run 0.32 Within the Fifteenmile subbasin, Orchard Ridge Ditch and Wolf Run Ditch 

have a combined total of about 12 miles of unpiped ditches with significant 

water loss. Piping both of these ditches would save approximately 1.5 cfs 

each, which, according to the Oregon State “Allocation of Conserved Water 

Statute”, could be allocated partially to instream flow and partially to the 

water rights holders (Fifteenmile subbasin plan). Because of this sharing 

between providing for instream use, together with providing an allocation to 

users, a moderate level of effectiveness was assigned. 

Urban conservation 0.08 Urban water users are considered a relatively small water use in the 

subbasins of concern, except in some specific areas. Also, continued growth 

in these areas will limit effectiveness of conservation measures. A low 

effectiveness is assigned. 

Convert water rights 0.32 Under an aggressive program to lease or purchase rights and convert the 

water to flow downstream, a moderate level of effectiveness is assumed. 

Realized effectiveness would be a function of opportunity (seen in action 

intensity). 

 Regulate water 

withdrawals 

0.32 This action would implement a more accountable form of monitoring and 

regulation to better ensure compliance on water withdrawals. A moderate 

level of effectiveness is assumed. 

Water retention structures 0.08 This action is only applicable to some areas in the Deschutes subbasin. It 

would place water retention structures in key tributaries to augment flow 

during low flow periods. The type of structures and their operation remain 

uncertain and undefined. A low effectiveness is assumed. 

Increase pool habitat 

(beaver ponds) 

0.32 This action would seek to increase pool area habitat (thereby augmenting 

flow during low flow periods) by facilitating creation of beaver ponds. In areas 

suitable for such habitat creation, the action should be quite effective. A 

moderate level of effectiveness is assumed where opportunities exist 

(specified by the intensity assumption). This action would only be 

implemented in some areas of the John Day system. 

 Floodplain aquifer 

recharge 

0.32 This action would seek to recharge the floodplain aquifer at specific sites and 

thereby increase flows downstream during periods of low flow. Plan specifics, 

though not described, suggest a high level of certainty. The level of 

effectiveness was assumed to be moderate, but realized effectiveness would 

be limited to opportunities and willingness of land owners. 

 H2O rights transfer 

downstream 

0.32 This action would seek to transfer water rights downstream, presumably 

creating more instream flow within reaches affected by those existing rights. 

Realized benefits downstream would depend on issues existing in those 

areas. A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed, but realized benefits 

would depend on opportunities and arrangements of water rights along the 

stream corridor. 

Water storage investigate 0.01 This action would be mainly investigative, considering ways of learning new 

ways of storing water and improving overall efficiency of use in the subbasin. 

Due to uncertainties, a negligible effectiveness is assumed. 

No new H2O appropriation 0.00 This action would close areas to new water appropriation. While it would 

protect against increases in water use, it would have no effect on current use. 

Criteria for new H2O 

appropriation 

0.32 This action would set updated criteria to protect flows for fish habitat from 

new appropriations and it is assumed that it could have a carryover effect to 

save more water for instream uses than currently allowed. Where 

opportunities exist, it is assumed to have a moderate effectiveness (though a 

low intensity of likely opportunities for water savings would make realized 

effectiveness very small). 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-18

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

Enhance hyporheic flows 0.08 This action would seek to enhance hyporheic flows and flows in springs. 

Uncertainty in action details result in this action being assigned a low 

effectiveness. These types of projects are highly experimental in nature with 

uncertain expected results. 

Recharge shallow aquifers 0.08 This action would seek to recharge shallow aquifers. Uncertainty in action 

details result in this action being assigned a low effectiveness. Plan specifics 

state that certainty of outcome is undetermined. These types of projects are 

highly experimental in nature with uncertain expected results. 

Aquifer storage & recovery 0.08 This action would seek to improve aquifer storage and recharge. Plan 

specifics state that the effectiveness of the action is "unknown." A low 

effectiveness is assumed. 

Umatilla Basin Project 

Phase I and II 

0.32 Phase I and II of the Umatilla Basin Project are currently meeting certain 

critical flow needs in the mainstem of the Umatilla River. The program would 

be continued under this action. Target flows for the Umatilla River mainstem 

were established as part of the Basin Project to meet essential life history 

needs of Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead. The Basin Project as 

currently implemented does not provide adequate water to meet the target 

flows throughout all of the times needed by these species, and fails to 

provide any flow mitigation for a significant length of the river in July and 

August. It is assumed that project effectiveness under this action is moderate 

(see additional details spelled out in the Umatilla subbasin plan). 

Umatilla Basin Project 

Phase III 

0.32 Phase I and II of the Umatilla Basin Project are currently meeting certain 

critical flow needs in the mainstem of the Umatilla River. Target flows for the 

Umatilla River mainstem were established as part of the Basin Project to 

meet essential life history needs of Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead. 

Phases 1 and II do not provide adequate water to meet the target flows 

throughout all of the times needed by these species, and fails to provide any 

flow mitigation for a significant length of the river in July and August. Phase 

III would keep a substantial amount of Umatilla River water instream. This 

action is assigned a moderate level of effectiveness (combined with Phase I 

and II action, it would result in an overall effectiveness of moderately high). 

 ISWRs 0.32 While instream water rights (ISWRs) have been established on many of the 

important spawning and rearing stream in the Umatilla and Walla Walla 

subbasins, some have not. Where important spawning and rearing streams 

have not been protected by instream water rights, appropriate instream flow 

studies would be conducted and instream water rights applied for. It is 

assumed that a moderate level of effectiveness for this action would result. 

7. Improve degraded water quality 

Manage irrigation return 

flow 

0.08 This action would consist of measures to reduce irrigation return flow to 

streams--or improve its quality--to reduce extreme water temperatures. This 

action is assigned a low effectiveness due to strong influence of other factors 

affecting high water temperatures in the subbasins of interest. Types of 

measures to minimize return flows are listed as use of cover crops, straw 

mulch, and grass filter strips (Middle Deschutes Local Advisory Committee 

2006). 

Measures to improve DO 0.08 This action would consist of measures to reduce unnatural factors that affect 

dissolved oxygen levels in the streams of interest. This action is assigned a 

low effectiveness due to strong influence of other factors affecting nutrient 

loading, flow levels, water temperatures and related oxygen levels in the 

subbasins of interest. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-19

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

Reduce chemical pollution 0.32 This action addresses chemical (e.g., pesticides) pollution related to 

agricultural practices in the Fifteenmile, Deschutes, and John Day subbasins. 

Actions specified in the plan state that levels reaching streams are generally 

unknown and need to be determined. The plan also states that certainty of 

outcome of treatment is moderate to high (depending on subbasin). Action 

effectiveness assigned here is moderate. Realized effectiveness would be 

determined by the intensity of application of the action (but given 

uncertainties in where and when the problem is occurring, a low intensity is 

applied. 

Implement Ag WQP 0.32 This action calls for implementation of an agricultural water quality plan in the 

Fifteenmile and Deschutes subbasins. The plans are locally-driven area-wide 

plans that address agricultural water quality problems while providing a 

regulatory backstop. The plans provide landowner flexibility in solving local 

water quality issues. Enforcement is not a primary method for assuring 

success, although compliance is a component. The planning teams 

responsible for Section 9 (this plan) expect certainty of outcome to be high in 

both basins and suggest a significant degree of success. A moderate level of 

effectiveness is assumed here in both subbasins (with a high level of 

intensity of application). 

TMDL monitoring 0.08 This action utilizes TMDL monitoring to help trigger the formulation of 

management plans to address specific water quality issues. All of the issues 

that might trigger a TMDL response management plan are addressed 

through other actions in this suite of actions. Therefore, an effectiveness of 

low is assigned to this action as an add-on effect, presuming that TMDL 

monitoring will aid in making other actions more effective. 

Reduce mine discharge 

toxicants 

0.32 This action addresses past mining in the John Day subbasin. The action is 

described by the planning team as having a high certainty of outcome, 

although it would be contingent upon adequate maintenance of needed 

components. The action would require long term implementation. An 

effectiveness of moderate is assumed given uncertainties associated with 

long-term maintenance. 

Animal feeding BMPs 0.56 This action is aimed at a small number of feedlots in the John Day subbasin, 

which operate in conjunction with use of riverside meadows for winter feeding 

operations. The plan (Section 9) states that certainty of outcome, once a 

treatment has been agreed upon, is high. A moderately high effectiveness 

level is assigned to the action. 

Point source pollution 

controls 

0.56 This action addresses point source pollutants in the Umatilla and Walla Walla 

subbasins. It primarily targets chemical pollutants. The planning team 

(Section 9) identified a high certainty of outcome. Because point sources are 

easier to control than non-point sources, and means have been identified for 

assessing load levels in streams of concern, a high effectiveness is assigned 

here. 

H2O quality mgmt plans 0.32 This action that addresses water quality issues is specified to be applied in 

the Umatilla and Walla Walla subbasins. It is not specifically stated to be an 

Agricultural Water Quality Plan (implemented through provisions of Senate 

Bill 1010) but presumably it could be. See related rationale for effectiveness 

under "Implement Ag WQP" above. The planning teams that outlined this 

action (Section 9) identified the degree of implementation for this action to be 

uncertain in both subbasins but suggested a moderate level of success. The 

level of effectiveness assumed here is moderate (realized effectiveness will 

be a function of implementation intensity, which here is also assumed to be 

moderate). 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-20

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

Pest mgmt plans for fruit 

growers 

0.32 This action addresses fruit pests in the Walla Walla subbasin. It is assumed 

here that it encompasses all aspects described below for "Implement IFPnet 

plans." A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed. 

 Municipal stormwater 

mgmt 

0.32 This action addresses municipal stormwater management in the Walla Walla 

basin. Technology for managing stormwater runoff in municipalities is 

developed in general and can be applied. The level of effectiveness is related 

to some degree by how aggressive a program is designed to be. The 

planning team (Section 9) stated that the outcome of implementation is 

uncertain. Part of this uncertainty may be related to the human population 

growth in the targeted areas. A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed 

here because of the relatively small areal extent of urbanization in the 

targeted subbasins relative to the extent in other areas of the Pacific 

Northwest. Effectiveness is likely to be related to the extent of urbanization 

and remains essentially experimental (Konrad 2003). 

 Waterway alteration 

permitting 

0.00 This action would require permitting of waterway alteration activities, 

presumably that are expected in the mainstem Walla Walla River. “Waterway 

alteration” means any action that will result in excavation, dredging, filling, 

rechannelization, construction, or any other type of modification of an aquatic 

habitat areas occupied by ESA-listed species that will affect the conservation 

value of that habitat. Under Section 9 of this document, it states "While permit 

processes implemented by the US Army Corps of Engineers are thorough 

and actions authorized are protective of aquatic resources, the program lacks 

personnel resources to insure that terms and conditions of permitted actions 

are followed. In addition, this agency lacks resources to adequately monitor 

waterways for non-permitted actions or act upon non-permitted situations 

reported by other agencies or private parties." This action is meant to provide 

protection against presumed future waterway alterations in the Walla Walla 

River. As such, an effectiveness of "no effect" is assigned here that would 

benefit habitat values. 

 Permitting for H2O quality 

activities 

0.00 This action would provide for improved permitting and enforcement of 

activities that might degrade water quality in the Walla Walla subbasin. The 

action is only relevant in the present analysis if other actions (such as buildout) are to be analyzed that would degrade water quality, in which case the 

action would serve protect. As such, an effectiveness of "no effect" is 

assigned here that would benefit habitat values. 

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

Convert till farming 0.32 Conversion to no till farming would reduce sediment loading to streams. 

Replacement of conventional tillage systems for dryland wheat production 

with new methods, such as direct seed/no till systems, is known to reduce 

sediment delivery to streams from these typically highly erodible soils. This 

action would seek to achieve a 95% conversion in targeted areas. A 

moderate level of effectiveness is assumed though available information is 

not readily available on effectiveness; realized effectiveness will be strongly 

driven by the overall scope and distribution of targeted areas. 

Convert to perennial crops 0.32 This action would entail shifting from annual grains to perennial crops in 

order to reduce erosion. The scope of the action is uncertain but it potentially 

could produce a significant reduction in sediment delivery to streams. A 

moderate level of effectiveness was assumed; realized effectiveness will be 

strongly driven by the overall scope and distribution of targeted areas. 

Implement IFPnet plans 0.32 This action is aimed at promoting use of less toxic pesticides in the 

concentrated fruit orchards of the Fifteenmile subbasin. The program is 

described in Cockrum and Omeg (2003). A moderate level of effectiveness is 

assumed on reported results. Note: action should more correctly be placed 

under Strategy 7. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-21

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

 Improve/remove forest 

roads 

0.32 Roads are a major source of sediment in managed watersheds. Road 

closures, obliteration, and improvements known to be effective at reducing 

sediment loading to streams. A moderate level of effectiveness is assumed; 

realized effectiveness will be strongly driven by the amount of roads closed 

or improved (defined by the intensity factor). 

 Reforest/fuels 

management 

0.32 This action calls for improvements in fuels management and should overtime 

reduce potential erosion of soils and sediment delivery to streams. Intensive 

application should provide a moderate level of effectiveness. 

Upland demo projects 0.32 This action calls for demonstration projects to show the benefits of new 

concepts in land management, thus their scale of implementation is 

necessarily small. In areas where implemented, it can be assumed that they 

should demonstrate benefits, hence a moderate level of effectiveness is 

assumed. 

BMPS to reduce soil 

erosion 

0.32 Best management practices to promote improved land use practices are 

generally known and further improvements in understanding can be expected 

in the near future as there are on-going studies to address this issue. A 

moderate effectiveness is reasonable to expect as a result of continued 

progress in how lands are being managed. It is expected that land owners 

will over time improve their practices in the uplands. (This action is essentially 

the same as "BMPs on land uses" - the two actions are called for in different 

subbasins. ) 

Remove junipers 0.32 Western juniper has increased in abundance in eastern Oregon due to 

changes in land use management practices, principally reduction in fire. 

Juniper removal is one management technique to reduce the density of 

junipers. Because of the water use of junipers, groundwater levels have been 

affected (even significantly) where junipers are in high abundance. Removal 

of junipers has been shown to have a significant effect on water yield where 

removal is extensive. This can also change vegetation patterns and species, 

promoting grasses and reducing erosion. It is assumed that effectiveness is 

moderate when removal occurs on a large enough scale. See for example 

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/AGENCY_AFFAIRS/Juniper_Story.shtml and 

http://www.oregon.gov/OPSW/stories/lakes_basin.shtml 

Restore native upland 

plants 

0.32 This action would seek to restore natural assemblages of plant species in 

upland communities, promoting more natural hydrographs and improved 

erosion control. When intensively conducted, a moderate effectiveness is 

assumed. 

Invasive plant mgmt & 

junipers 

0.32 This action would combine activities in the two actions above, affording 

improved erosion control and more natural water yield patterns. When 

intensively conducted, a moderate effectiveness is assumed. 

BMPs on land uses 0.32 Best management practices to promote improved land use practices are 

generally known and further improvements in understanding can be expected 

in the near future as there are on-going studies to address this issue. A 

moderate effectiveness is reasonable to expect as a result of continued 

progress in how lands are being managed. It is expected that land owners 

will over time improve their practices in the uplands. 

CREP & CCRP buffers 0.32 This action would implement a Continuous Conservation Reserve Program 

and a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program for streamside buffers, 

affording voluntary, non-competitive, programs for agricultural landowners 

built on financial incentives. Voluntary participation by local landowners is 

sought through a cost share program designed to restore and enhance 

habitat and increase bank stability along waterways on private lands with a 

cropping history. It is implemented in areas with highly erodible soils. When 

implemented fully, it should be quite effective, here it was assumed to have a 

moderate effectiveness (vs. a higher effectiveness) due to uncertainties in 

reported results that were reviewed. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-22

Table H-3B. Action effectiveness values. 

Strategy Action Effect. Rationale/comment 

 Outreach to upland users 0.32 Education and on-going interactions with upland land owners is deemed 

critical to restore vegetation and reduce erosion. Where intensively 

implemented, an add-on benefit is assumed, producing a greater 

effectiveness to targeted practices for reducing erosion. A moderate level of 

effectiveness is assumed. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-23

Table H-4A and B. Action implementation intensity assumptions and levels applied in analysis (A) and 

corresponding intensity scalars assigned to each action with rationale/comments (B). See Section 10 for how 

intensity scalars were applied. 

Table H-4A. Action implementation intensity levels. 

Intensity level Definition Scalar 

1 Very high 0.85 

2 High 0.40 

3 Moderate 0.15 

4 Low 0.05 

5 Negligible 0.02 

6 None 0.00 

Table H-4B. Action implementation intensity scalars. 

Strategy Action Scalar Rationale/comment 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

 Acquisition/conservation 0.05 Areas to be acquired or conserved for habitat values will likely be low relative to 

the sheer size of areas designated to encompass set-asides. 

Protect rare functioning 

habitats 

0.15 Reasonable attempts would be made to fully protect rare functioning habitats 

where opportunities exist; assume moderate intensity. 

BMPs to conserve eco 

processes 

0.15 Moderate intensity overall would be reasonable to expect for realizing BMPs in 

conserving ecological processes. 

Cooperative Agreements 0.40 A high intensity of implementation would be prudent in initiating new cooperative 

agreements. 

 Special mgmt 

designations 

0.05 New Special Management Designations are not expected to exceed a low 

intensity of implementation. 

 Increase wild-scenic 

status 

0.15 New Wild and Scenic Status could likely not be expected to exceed a moderate 

intensity of implementation. 

Protect access to key 

habitats 

0.00 Issue is covered completely by other actions as this action was described; not 

given an intensity value here. 

Outreach to users and 

managers 

0.05 Low intensity of implementation is expected for this action because education 

can be expected to accompany other line item actions. 

Public lands protection 0.05 Protection of public lands are integral part of various other actions within the 

action list; a low intensity of additional implementation is afforded this action as 

an add-on to the other actions. 

Waterway setbacks 0.15 Moderate intensity overall would be reasonable to expect for initiating new 

waterway setbacks in targeted stream segments. 

Enforce floodplain regs 0.15 Moderate intensity overall would be reasonable to expect for implementing new 

activities designed to enforce floodplain regulations. 

Natural Area Overlay 

Zone 

0.15 Moderate intensity overall would be reasonable to expect for realizing BMPs in 

conserving ecological processes. 

 Legislate priority areas 0.02 A very low (negligible) level of intensity is envisioned in legislating new priority 

measures. This measure is largely investigative. Many other avenues are 

considered to be in place or proposed for action to address such issues. 

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

Barrier removal -- All barriers identified in Section 9 to be addressed would be targeted for action. 

Add irrigation screening 0.85 A very high level of intensity of implementation is assumed to add irrigation 

screening where it is currently lacking. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-24

Table H-4B. Action implementation intensity scalars. 

Strategy Action Scalar Rationale/comment 

Pelton Round Butte 

passage 

-- Passage will be implemented at the Pelton Round Butte complex; it is also 

assumed that passage will be implemented at diversion barriers in Whychus 

Creek. 

Upgrade irrigation 

screening 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall would be prudent to expect for 

upgrading screens as they are determined to be under performing. 

Reduce push up dams 0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall would be prudent to address 

push up dams in selected stream segments. 

Fish ladder construction -- This matter is addressed under Barrier removal above. 

 Maintain passage 

facilities 

-- It is expected that efforts will be sufficiently implemented to maintain passage 

facilities in good working condition. 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

Reconnect floodplain 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

reconnecting floodplain habitats in selected stream segments. 

Reconnect side channels 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

reconnecting side channels in selected stream segments. 

Reintroduce beaver 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

restoring beaver populations as watershed functions are gradually restored, and 

more normative stream channel and floodplain conditions are restored. 

Restore wet meadows 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

restoring wet meadows in selected stream segments as related watershed 

functions are gradually restored. 

Dike removal 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

dike removal in selected stream segments as watershed function gradually 

restored. 

 Manage beavers 0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assumed to be needed for beaver 

management. Uncertainty about issues related to effects of beavers on private 

properties in the targeted areas exist, however. 

4. Restore degraded channel structure/complexity 

Restore natural channel 

form 

0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

restoring channel form in selected stream segments as related watershed 

functions are gradually restored. 

 Large wood 

enhancement 

0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

actively enhancing large wood quantities in the active channel in selected 

stream segments (in conjunction with related actions such as LWD education). 

Add structure 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

adding a diversity of structure to selected stream reach segments. 

Stabilize streambanks 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

stabilizing streambanks in selected stream segments. 

Build pool weirs 0.02 Because this action frequently is ineffective, only a very low (negligible) level of 

implementation intensity overall is expected in selected stream segments. 

BMP bridge maintenance 0.02 A low level of implementation is assigned to this action (note: the author of the 

analysis subsequently concluded that a high level of intensity would be prudent 

for this action - though this would have an inconsequential effect on the overall 

analysis due to the very low effectiveness assigned to this action). 

 LWD education 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

providing LWD education in areas targeted for restoration. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-25

Table H-4B. Action implementation intensity scalars. 

Strategy Action Scalar Rationale/comment 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

 Restore riparian 

communities 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall should be pursued for this action, 

as riparian integrity is deemed so important for the overall health of the stream 

and its populations. Riparian restoration has a very high effectiveness. 

 Improve grazing 

practices 

0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

improving grazing practices in areas targeted for restoration work. 

Eradicate invasive plants 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

eradicating invasive plants in areas targeted for restoration work. 

Fencing 0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall should be pursued for this action 

in stream segments with opportunities for restoration. Fencing is an effective 

tool for restoring riparian zones. Riparian restoration has a very high 

effectiveness. 

 Off-stream livestock 

watering 

0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

achieving off-stream livestock watering. 

Riparian plantings 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect for 

using riparian plantings in selected stream segments. 

Increase riparian shading 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is reasonable to expect 

using various means to increase riparian shading in selected stream segments. 

No cultivation buffer 

zones 

0.05 A low level of implementation is assigned to this action due to uncertainties 

about opportunities for establishing no cultivation buffers. 

Maintain RHCAs on 

USFS lands 

0.85 A high level of implementation intensity overall should be pursued for this action 

in stream segments targeted with USFW lands. 

Remove riparian roads 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

removal of riparian roads in the stream segments targeted. 

 Riparian protection 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect 

protecting riparian areas associated with new riparian measures. 

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

Ag water conservation 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

initiating new water conservation measures on agricultural lands. This action 

includes application and not conveyance systems. 

 Improve irrigation 

conveyance 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is warranted for improving 

irrigation conveyance as an effective way of reducing leakage/loss of water in 

arid areas selected for restoration work. 

Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run 0.85 A very high level of implementation intensity overall is assumed for completion 

of these two irrigation systems in Fifteenmile subbasin. 

Urban conservation 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is assumed for urban water 

conservation measures. 

Convert water rights 0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about opportunities. 

 Regulate water 

withdrawals 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is warranted for monitoring and 

regulating water withdrawals consistent with laws, regulations, and agreements. 

 Water retention 

structures 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about opportunities. 

Increase pool habitat 

(beaver ponds) 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about opportunities that would likely have the desired result for 

augmenting stream flow. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-26

Table H-4B. Action implementation intensity scalars. 

Strategy Action Scalar Rationale/comment 

 Floodplain aquifer 

recharge 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about opportunities that would likely have the desired result for 

augmenting stream flow. The action is seen as being highly experimental. 

 H2O rights transfer 

downstream 

0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

transfer of water rights downstream, if opportunities avail themselves to 

implementation. 

Water storage investigate 0.02 This action would be mainly investigative, considering ways of learning new 

ways of storing water and improving overall efficiency of use in the subbasin. 

Due to uncertainties, a negligible intensity of implementation is assumed here. 

Other actions would serve the same purpose and are included with higher 

intensities. 

No new H2O 

appropriation 

0.00 This action would close areas to new water appropriation. While it would protect 

against increases in water use, it would have no effect on current use. A zero 

intensity of implementation would occur that could help restore flow to the 

stream. 

Criteria for new H2O 

appropriation 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about real opportunities for new water appropriations. 

Enhance hyporheic flows 0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about opportunities that would likely have the desired result for 

augmenting stream flow. The action is seen as being highly experimental. 

 Recharge shallow 

aquifers 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about opportunities that would likely have the desired result for 

augmenting stream flow. The action is seen as being highly experimental. 

 Aquifer storage & 

recovery 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about opportunities that would likely have the desired result for 

augmenting stream flow. The action is seen as being highly experimental. 

Umatilla Basin Project 

Phase I and II 

0.85 A very high level of implementation intensity is assumed in maintaining Phases I 

and II of the project. 

Umatilla Basin Project 

Phase III 

0.85 A very high level of implementation intensity is assumed in implementing Phase 

III of the project. 

 ISWRs 0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about opportunities. 

7. Improve degraded water quality 

Manage irrigation return 

flow 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is warranted so that irrigators are 

performing as effectively as they can reasonably do in reducing effects of return 

flow. 

Measures to improve DO 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

reducing unnatural factors that affect dissolved oxygen in targeted stream 

segments. 

 Reduce chemical 

pollution 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action given 

uncertainties in where and when the problem is occurring. 

Implement Ag WQP 0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is expected in the Fifteenmile 

and Deschutes subbasins in implementing Agricultural Water Quality Plans. 

TMDL monitoring 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity is expected for TMDL monitoring in 

the targeted subbasins. 

Reduce mine discharge 

toxicants 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is expected to be targeted on 

known areas of mining pollution in the John Day subbasin. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-27

Table H-4B. Action implementation intensity scalars. 

Strategy Action Scalar Rationale/comment 

Animal feeding BMPs 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is expected to be targeted 

on areas used as animal feedlots, as there are only a few sites of concern. 

Point source pollution 

controls 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall should be pursued for this action 

in targeted stream segments. Point source pollution is readily identifiable and 

can be addressed through monitoring and attentive solutions. 

H2O quality mgmt plans 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is expected in the Umatilla 

and Walla subbasins in implementing new water quality plans due to 

uncertainties about participation (as described in Section 9 for this action). 

Pest mgmt plans for fruit 

growers 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect in targeted 

stream segments using the IFPnet model developed on in Fifteenmile Creek, 

based on. The IFP project has grown out of the public’s concern over pesticide 

residues on food, exposure to farm workers, and contamination in the 

environment (Cockrum and Omeg 2004). 

 Municipal stormwater 

mgmt 

0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

addressing stormwater runoff in municipal areas given the level of concern that 

accompanies this in watersheds of the Pacific Northwest as it relates to effects 

on salmonids (Konrad 2004). Uncertainties exist, however, about effectiveness 

and approaches are still largely experimental. 

 Waterway alteration 

permitting 

-- This action is by intent for protection purposes only -- it provides no restoration 

purpose. The effectiveness assumption was set to zero, therefore intensity of 

implementation has no scaling effect in this case. 

 Permitting for H2O 

quality activities 

-- This action is by intent for protection purposes only -- it provides no restoration 

purpose. The effectiveness assumption was set to zero, therefore intensity of 

implementation has no scaling effect in this case. 

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

Convert till farming 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

reducing erosion through this action given levels of concern about soil loss and 

sedimentation of streams in the targeted subbasins. 

Convert to perennial 

crops 

0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect for 

reducing erosion through this action given levels of concern about soil loss and 

sedimentation of streams in the targeted subbasins. 

Implement IFPnet plans 0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is prudent to expect in targeted 

stream segments using the IFPnet model developed on in Fifteenmile Creek, 

based on. The IFP project has grown out of the public’s concern over pesticide 

residues on food, exposure to farm workers, and contamination in the 

environment (Cockrum and Omeg 2004). 

 Improve/remove forest 

roads 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is expected for this action in 

targeted areas of the subbasins. Forest roads are frequently major sources of 

sediment in streams of the Pacific Northwest, including those in central and 

northeast Oregon. 

 Reforest/fuels 

management 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity overall is expected for this action in 

targeted areas of the subbasins. Significant concerns about forest health and 

fire management exist in the forested portions of watersheds in central and 

northeast Oregon. 

Upland demo projects 0.02 An overall very low (negligible) implementation intensity is expected for this 

action given uncertainties about benefits relative to other actions with known 

benefits. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-28

Table H-4B. Action implementation intensity scalars. 

Strategy Action Scalar Rationale/comment 

BMPS to reduce soil 

erosion 

0.40 A high level of implementation intensity is prudent to achieve BMPs on land 

practices that result in elevated sediment delivery to targeted segments of 

streams in the designated subbasins (Fifteenmile and Deschutes). The planning 

teams that described actions in Section 9 identified certainty of outcome for this 

action as high, indicating a high degree of participation by stakeholders. 

Remove junipers 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity is expected to reduce juniper 

abundance in targeted areas in the Deschutes subbasin. Benefits accrue to 

water conservation, fire management, and juniper harvesters. See 

planninhttp://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/AGENCY_AFFAIRS/Juniper_Story.shtml 

Restore native upland 

plants 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about participation suggested in description of action in Section 9 

in the designated subbasins. 

Invasive plant mgmt & 

junipers 

0.05 A low level of implementation intensity is assigned to this action due to 

uncertainties about participation suggested in description of action in Section 9 

in the designated subbasins. 

BMPs on land uses 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity is expected to achieve BMPs on 

land practices associated with a variety of factors afffecting targeted segments 

of streams in the designated subbasins (John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla). 

The planning teams that described actions in Section 9 identified certainty of 

outcome for this action as moderate based on uncertainties about extent of 

voluntary participation by stakeholders. 

CREP & CCRP buffers 0.15 A moderate level of implementation intensity is expected for participation in the 

CREP and CCRP programs in the Walla Walla subbasin. Walla Walla County 

has roughly 25% of the CREP for the entire state of Washington, though state 

funding is currently uncertain. 

 Outreach to upland users 0.02 Very low (negligible) intensity of implementation is projected for this action 

because education can be expected to accompany other line item actions. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-29

Table H-5. Action effectiveness lag scalars applied to habitat actions. Lag scalars are assumed values, 

representing the expected amount of the potential effectiveness that would be realized 25 years after 

implementation. A lag scalar value reflects the expected rate that an action’s effectiveness will mature with 

time (e.g., due to tree growth, change in sediment load, reshaping of hydrograph) . All lag scalars were 

assumed to attain values of 1.0 after 100 years. See Section 10 for how lag scalars were applied. 

Table H-5. Action effectiveness lag scalars at 25 years. 

Strategy Action Scalar 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

 Acquisition/conservation 0.50 

Protect rare functioning habitats 0.80 

BMPs to conserve eco processes 0.80 

 Cooperative Agreements 0.70 

Special mgmt designations 0.70 

 Increase wild-scenic status 0.70 

Protect access to key habitats 0.70 

Outreach to users and managers 0.70 

Public lands protection 0.50 

 Waterway setbacks 0.80 

Enforce floodplain regs 0.80 

Natural Area Overlay Zone 1.00 

 Legislate priority areas 0.80 

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

 Barrier removal 1.00 

Add irrigation screening 1.00 

Pelton Round Butte passage 1.00 

Upgrade irrigation screening 1.00 

Reduce push up dams 1.00 

Fish ladder construction 1.00 

 Maintain passage facilities 1.00 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

 Reconnect floodplain 0.80 

Reconnect side channels 0.80 

 Reintroduce beaver 0.80 

 Restore wet meadows 0.70 

 Dike removal 0.90 

 Manage beavers 0.90 

4. Restore degraded channel structure/complexity 

Restore natural channel form 0.80 

 Large wood enhancement 1.00 

 Add structure 0.90 

 Stabilize streambanks 0.90 

Build pool weirs 1.00 

BMP bridge maintenance 1.00 

 LWD education 1.00 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-30

Table H-5. Action effectiveness lag scalars at 25 years. 

Strategy Action Scalar 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

 Restore riparian communities 0.70 

 Improve grazing practices 0.80 

Eradicate invasive plants 0.90 

 Fencing 0.80 

Off-stream livestock watering 1.00 

 Riparian plantings 0.80 

Increase riparian shading 0.80 

No cultivation buffer zones 1.00 

Maintain RHCAs on USFS lands 0.70 

 Remove riparian roads 0.90 

 Riparian protection 1.00 

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

Ag water conservation 1.00 

Improve irrigation conveyance 1.00 

Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run 1.00 

 Urban conservation 1.00 

 Convert water rights 1.00 

Regulate water withdrawals 1.00 

Water retention structures 1.00 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 0.80 

Floodplain aquifer recharge 0.70 

H2O rights transfer downstream 0.70 

Water storage investigate 1.00 

No new H2O appropriation 1.00 

Criteria for new H2O appropriation 0.80 

Enhance hyporheic flows 0.80 

Recharge shallow aquifers 0.50 

Aquifer storage & recovery 0.70 

Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II 1.00 

Umatilla Basin Project Phase III 1.00 

 ISWRs 1.00 

7. Improve degraded water quality 

Manage irrigation return flow 1.00 

Measures to improve DO 1.00 

Reduce chemical pollution 0.80 

Implement Ag WQP 1.00 

 TMDL monitoring 1.00 

Reduce mine discharge toxicants 0.70 

Animal feeding BMPs 1.00 

Point source pollution controls 0.80 

H2O quality mgmt plans 0.80 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-31

Table H-5. Action effectiveness lag scalars at 25 years. 

Strategy Action Scalar 

Pest mgmt plans for fruit growers 0.70 

Municipal stormwater mgmt 0.70 

Waterway alteration permitting 0.70 

 Permitting for H2O quality activities 0.70 

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

Convert till farming 0.80 

Convert to perennial crops 0.80 

Implement IFPnet plans 0.80 

 Improve/remove forest roads 0.70 

 Reforest/fuels management 0.50 

Upland demo projects 0.80 

BMPS to reduce soil erosion 0.70 

 Remove junipers 0.80 

Restore native upland plants 0.70 

Invasive plant mgmt & junipers 0.70 

BMPs on land uses 0.80 

CREP & CCRP buffers 0.70 

 Outreach to upland users 0.80 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-32

Table H-6. Action implementation schedule scalars at 25 years applied to habitat actions. Implementation 

schedule scalars define how the schedule for implementing an action—relative to what might be considered 

year 0 of a recovery program—would affect realized effectiveness in either year 25 or year 100 of the 

program. Use of this scalar in the analysis recognizes that the recovery programs will be long-term in 

implementation due to their very extensive scope. The planning teams who described actions (Section 9) 

specified implementation schedules. See Section 10 for how lag scalars were applied. 

Table H-6. Action implementation schedule scalars at 25 years. 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

 Acquisition/conservation 0.80 0.96 0.80 0.80 0.80 

Protect rare functioning habitats 0.96 0.96 0.60 0.60 

BMPs to conserve eco processes 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 

 Cooperative Agreements 0.80 0.80 

Special mgmt designations 0.96 0.96 

 Increase wild-scenic status 0.96 

Protect access to key habitats 0.80 

Outreach to users and managers 0.60 

Public lands protection 0.60 0.60 

 Waterway setbacks 0.60 0.60 

Enforce floodplain regs 0.60 0.60 

Natural Area Overlay Zone 0.96 0.96 

 Legislate priority areas 0.60 0.60 

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

 Barrier removal 0.60 0.80 0.60 0.96 0.80 

Add irrigation screening 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 

Pelton Round Butte passage 0.80 

Upgrade irrigation screening 0.60 0.80 0.60 0.60 

Reduce push up dams 0.60 

Fish ladder construction 0.60 0.80 0.80 

 Maintain passage facilities 0.96 0.96 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

 Reconnect floodplain 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.80 0.80 

Reconnect side channels 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.80 0.80 

 Reintroduce beaver 0.80 0.60 0.60 

 Restore wet meadows 0.80 

 Dike removal 0.80 0.80 

 Manage beavers 0.60 

4. Restore degraded channel structure/complexity 

Restore natural channel form 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 

 Large wood enhancement 0.80 0.60 0.80 0.96 0.96 

 Add structure 0.80 0.60 

 Stabilize streambanks 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.80 0.80 

Build pool weirs 0.60 0.60 

BMP bridge maintenance 0.60 

 LWD education 0.60 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

 Restore riparian communities 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 

 Improve grazing practices 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 

Eradicate invasive plants 0.60 0.60 

 Fencing 0.60 0.96 0.60 0.60 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-33

Table H-6. Action implementation schedule scalars at 25 years. 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

Off-stream livestock watering 0.60 0.60 

 Riparian plantings 0.60 

Increase riparian shading 0.60 0.60 

No cultivation buffer zones 0.60 0.60 

Maintain RHCAs on USFS lands 0.60 

 Remove riparian roads 0.60 0.60 

 Riparian protection 0.60 

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

Ag water conservation 0.60 0.80 0.60 0.96 

Improve irrigation conveyance 0.80 0.96 0.60 0.60 

Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run 0.80 

 Urban conservation 0.80 

 Convert water rights 0.60 0.96 0.60 0.60 0.80 

Regulate water withdrawals 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.80 

Water retention structures 0.96 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 0.60 

Floodplain aquifer recharge 0.60 

H2O rights transfer downstream 0.60 0.80 

Water storage investigate 0.60 

No new H2O appropriation 0.60 

Criteria for new H2O appropriation 0.60 

Enhance hyporheic flows 0.96 

Recharge shallow aquifers 0.60 

Aquifer storage & recovery 0.60 

Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II 0.60 

Umatilla Basin Project Phase III 0.60 

 ISWRs 0.60 0.60 

7. Improve degraded water quality 

Manage irrigation return flow 0.80 0.60 0.80 

Measures to improve DO 0.80 0.80 

Reduce chemical pollution 0.80 0.80 0.80 

Implement Ag WQP 0.80 0.96 

 TMDL monitoring 0.80 0.80 

Reduce mine discharge toxicants 0.60 

Animal feeding BMPs 0.96 

Point source pollution controls 0.80 0.80 

H2O quality mgmt plans 0.80 0.80 

Pest mgmt plans for fruit growers 0.60 

Municipal stormwater management 0.60 

Waterway alteration permitting 0.80 

 Permitting for H2O quality activities 0.80 

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

Convert till farming 0.96 0.96 0.60 

Convert to perennial crops 0.60 0.96 

Implement IFPnet plans 0.80 

 Improve/remove forest roads 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 

 Reforest/fuels management 0.60 0.60 

Upland demo projects 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 

BMPS to reduce soil erosion 0.80 0.80 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-34

Table H-6. Action implementation schedule scalars at 25 years. 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

 Remove junipers 0.96 

Restore native upland plants 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 

Invasive plant mgmt & junipers 0.60 

BMPs on land uses 0.60 0.60 0.60 

CREP & CCRP buffers 0.80 

 Outreach to upland users 0.60 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-35

Table H-7. Action implementation schedule scalars at 100 years applied to habitat actions. Implementation 

schedule scalars define how the schedule for implementing an action—relative to what might be considered 

year 0 of a recovery program—would affect realized effectiveness in either year 25 or year 100 of the 

program. Use of this scalar in the analysis recognizes that the recovery programs will be long-term in 

implementation due to their very extensive scope. The planning teams who described actions (Section 9) 

specified implementation schedules. See Section 10 for how lag scalars were applied. 

Table H-7. Action implementation schedule scalars at 100 years. 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

 Acquisition/conservation 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Protect rare functioning habitats 0.99 0.99 0.90 0.90 

BMPs to conserve eco processes 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

 Cooperative Agreements 0.95 0.95 

Special mgmt designations 0.99 0.99 

 Increase wild-scenic status 0.99 

Protect access to key habitats 0.95 

Outreach to users and managers 0.90 

Public lands protection 0.90 0.90 

 Waterway setbacks 0.90 0.90 

Enforce floodplain regs 0.90 0.90 

Natural Area Overlay Zone 0.99 0.99 

 Legislate priority areas 0.90 0.90 

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

 Barrier removal 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.99 0.95 

Add irrigation screening 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Pelton Round Butte passage 0.95 

Upgrade irrigation screening 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90 

Reduce push up dams 0.90 

Fish ladder construction 0.90 0.95 0.95 

 Maintain passage facilities 0.99 0.99 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

 Reconnect floodplain 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 

Reconnect side channels 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 

 Reintroduce beaver 0.95 0.90 0.90 

 Restore wet meadows 0.95 

 Dike removal 0.95 0.95 

 Manage beavers 0.90 

4. Restore degraded channel structure/complexity 

Restore natural channel form 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

 Large wood enhancement 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.99 0.99 

 Add structure 0.95 0.90 

 Stabilize streambanks 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 

Build pool weirs 0.90 0.90 

BMP bridge maintenance 0.90 

 LWD education 0.90 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-36

Table H-7. Action implementation schedule scalars at 100 years. 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

 Restore riparian communities 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

 Improve grazing practices 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Eradicate invasive plants 0.90 0.90 

 Fencing 0.90 0.99 0.90 0.90 

Off-stream livestock watering 0.90 0.90 

 Riparian plantings 0.90 

Increase riparian shading 0.90 0.90 

No cultivation buffer zones 0.90 0.90 

Maintain RHCAs on USFS lands 0.90 

 Remove riparian roads 0.90 0.90 

 Riparian protection 0.90 

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

Ag water conservation 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.99 

Improve irrigation conveyance 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.90 

Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run 0.95 

 Urban conservation 0.95 

 Convert water rights 0.90 0.99 0.90 0.90 0.95 

Regulate water withdrawals 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 

Water retention structures 0.99 

Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 0.90 

Floodplain aquifer recharge 0.90 

H2O rights transfer downstream 0.90 0.95 

Water storage investigate 0.90 

No new H2O appropriation 0.90 

Criteria for new H2O appropriation 0.90 

Enhance hyporheic flows 0.99 

Recharge shallow aquifers 0.90 

Aquifer storage & recovery 0.90 

Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II 0.90 

Umatilla Basin Project Phase III 0.90 

 ISWRs 0.90 0.90 

7. Improve degraded water quality 

Manage irrigation return flow 0.95 0.90 0.95 

Measures to improve DO 0.95 0.95 

Reduce chemical pollution 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Implement Ag WQP 0.95 0.99 

 TMDL monitoring 0.95 0.95 

Reduce mine discharge toxicants 0.90 

Animal feeding BMPs 0.99 

Point source pollution controls 0.95 0.95 

H2O quality mgmt plans 0.95 0.95 

Pest mgmt plans for fruit growers 0.90 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-37

Table H-7. Action implementation schedule scalars at 100 years. 

Strategy Action 

Fifteenmile Deschutes John Day Umatilla Walla Walla 

Municipal stormwater management 0.90 

Waterway alteration permitting 0.95 

 Permitting for H2O quality activities 0.95 

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

Convert till farming 0.99 0.99 0.90 

Convert to perennial crops 0.90 0.99 

Implement IFPnet plans 0.95 

 Improve/remove forest roads 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

 Reforest/fuels management 0.90 0.90 

Upland demo projects 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 

BMPS to reduce soil erosion 0.95 0.95 

 Remove junipers 0.99 

Restore native upland plants 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 

Invasive plant mgmt & junipers 0.90 

BMPs on land uses 0.90 0.90 0.90 

CREP & CCRP buffers 0.95 

 Outreach to upland users 0.90 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-38

Table H-8. Attribute scalars applied to habitat actions. Attribute scalars define whether the potential effectiveness of an action w

(scalar = 1) or reduced due to an attribute effect. Some actions have no effect on some attributes (scalar = 0). For each action, attr

being affected or not affected. A scalar of 1 was assigned to any attribute that would be affected, except for those that characterizflow, and temperature. Scalars for these were set to 0.75, recognizing that these attributes are broadly affected by watershed cond

difficult to influence than attributes driven mainly by site-specific conditions. See Section 10 for how scalars were applied. See Taattributes. 

Table H-8. Attribute scalars. 

Strategy Action 

BdScour 

BenComRch 

ConfineHydro 

DisOxy 

Emb 

FlwDielVar 

FlwHigh 

FlwIntraAnn 

FlwLow 

FnSedi 

HbOfChFctr 

HbPls 

Icing 

MscToxWat 

NutEnrch 

Obstr 

RipFunc 

TmpMonMn 

TmpMonMx 

TmpSptVar 

Turb 

1. Protect/conserve ecological processes 

 Acquisition/conservation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Protect rare functioning habitats 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. BMPs to conserve eco processes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Cooperative Agreements 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Special mgmt designations 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Increase wild-scenic status 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Protect access to key habitats 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00  Outreach to users and managers 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Public lands protection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Waterway setbacks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Enforce floodplain regs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Natural Area Overlay Zone 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Legislate priority areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.

2. Restore fish passage blocked/impaired by barriers 

 Barrier removal 1.00  Add irrigation screening  Pelton Round Butte passage 1.00  Upgrade irrigation screening  Reduce push up dams 1.00 0.75  Fish ladder construction 1.00  Maintain passage facilities 1.00 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function 

 Reconnect floodplain 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Reconnect side channels 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Reintroduce beaver 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Restore wet meadows 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-39

Table H-8. Attribute scalars. 

Strategy Action 

BdScour 

BenComRch 

ConfineHydro 

DisOxy 

Emb 

FlwDielVar 

FlwHigh 

FlwIntraAnn 

FlwLow 

FnSedi 

HbOfChFctr 

HbPls 

Icing 

MscToxWat 

NutEnrch 

Obstr 

RipFunc 

TmpMonMn 

TmpMonMx 

TmpSptVar 

Turb 

 Dike removal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Manage beavers 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.

4. Restore degraded channel structure/complexity 

 Restore natural channel form 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Large wood enhancement 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75  Add structure 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75  Stabilize streambanks 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.0 Build pool weirs 0.75 1.00  BMP bridge maintenance 1.00 1.00  LWD education 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment 

 Restore riparian communities 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Improve grazing practices 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Eradicate invasive plants 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00  Fencing 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Off-stream livestock watering 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Riparian plantings 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75  Increase riparian shading 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75  No cultivation buffer zones 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Maintain RHCAs on USFS lands 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Remove riparian roads 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Riparian protection 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.

6. Restore natural hydrograph components 

 Ag water conservation 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Improve irrigation conveyance 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Orchard Ridge/Wolf Run 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Urban conservation 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Convert water rights 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Regulate water withdrawals 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Water retention structures 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 0.75 1.00 1.00  Floodplain aquifer recharge 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75  H2O rights transfer downstream 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Water storage investigate 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75  No new H2O appropriation 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-40

Table H-8. Attribute scalars. 

Strategy Action 

BdScour 

BenComRch 

ConfineHydro 

DisOxy 

Emb 

FlwDielVar 

FlwHigh 

FlwIntraAnn 

FlwLow 

FnSedi 

HbOfChFctr 

HbPls 

Icing 

MscToxWat 

NutEnrch 

Obstr 

RipFunc 

TmpMonMn 

TmpMonMx 

TmpSptVar 

Turb 

 Criteria for new H2O appropriation 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Enhance hyporheic flows 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Recharge shallow aquifers 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Aquifer storage & recovery 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Umatilla Basin Project Phase III 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 ISWRs 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0

7. Improve degraded water quality 

 Manage irrigation return flow 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Measures to improve DO 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Reduce chemical pollution 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1. Implement Ag WQP 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. TMDL monitoring  Reduce mine discharge toxicants 1.00  Animal feeding BMPs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. Point source pollution controls 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1. H2O quality mgmt plans 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Pest mgmt plans for fruit growers 1.00  Municipal stormwater mgmt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Waterway alteration permitting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1. Permitting for H2O quality activities 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.

8. Restore upland processes to reduce erosion 

 Convert till farming 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 Convert to perennial crops 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 Implement IFPnet plans 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1. Improve/remove forest roads 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Reforest/fuels management 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Upland demo projects 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 BMPS to reduce soil erosion 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Remove junipers 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Restore native upland plants 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 Invasive plant mgmt & junipers 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 BMPs on land uses 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0 CREP & CCRP buffers 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-41

Table H-8. Attribute scalars. 

Strategy Action 

BdScour 

BenComRch 

ConfineHydro 

DisOxy 

Emb 

FlwDielVar 

FlwHigh 

FlwIntraAnn 

FlwLow 

FnSedi 

HbOfChFctr 

HbPls 

Icing 

MscToxWat 

NutEnrch 

Obstr 

RipFunc 

TmpMonMn 

TmpMonMx 

TmpSptVar 

Turb 

 Outreach to upland users 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-42 

Table H-9. Definitions of freshwater habitat attributes shown in Table H-8 (shown as attribute codes there). 

The attributes are applied in EDT analysis. 

Attribute 

code Attribute name Definition 

BdScour Bed scour Average depth and frequency of bed scour of smallcobble/gravel substrates of pool-tail outs, glides, and riffles 

during high flow events. 

BenComRch Benthos diversity 

and production 

Measure of the diversity and production of the benthos 

community. 

ConfineHydro Confinement - 

Hydromodifications 

The extent that man-made structures within or adjacent to 

the stream channel constrict flow (as at bridges) or restrict 

flow access to the stream's floodplain (due to streamside 

roads, revetments, diking or levees) or the extent that the 

channel has been ditched or channelized. 

DisOxy Dissolved oxygen Average dissolved oxygen within the water column for the 

specified time interval. 

Emb Embeddedness The extent that larger cobbles or gravel are surrounded by 

or covered by fine sediment. 

FlwDielVar Flow - Intra daily 

(diel) variation 

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

informative mainly for regulated rivers or when flow patterns 

are influenced by storm water runoff. 

FlwHigh Flow - change in 

interannual 

variability in high 

flows 

A measure of between year variation in magnitude of high 

flow levels and/or the extent of change in overall high flow 

level during a month relative to an undisturbed watershed of 

comparable size, geology, and geography. 

FlwIntraAnn Flow - intra-annual 

flow pattern 

The average extent of intra-annual flow variation during a 

month -- a measure of a stream's "flashiness" during a 

season. 

FlwLow Flow - changes in 

interannual 

variability in low 

flows 

A measure of between year variation in the severity of low 

flow discharge during a month. Variation in low flows as 

applied here is relative to an undisturbed watershed of 

comparable size, geology, and geography. 

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

HbOfChFctr Habitat type - offchannel habitat 

factor 

A multiplier used to estimate the amount of off-channel 

habitat based on the wetted surface area of the all 

combined in-channel habitat. 

HbPls Habitat type - 

primary pools 

Percentage of the wetted channel surface area comprising 

pools. 

Icing Icing Extent (magnitude and frequency) of icing events. 

MscToxWat Miscellaneous toxic 

pollutants - water 

column 

The extent of miscellaneous toxic pollantants within the 

water column. 

NutEnrch Nutrient enrichment The amount of nutrient enrichment consisting of such items 

as ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorous. 

Obstr Obstructions to fish 

migration 

Obstructions to fish passage by physical barriers (not 

dewatered channels or hinderances to migration caused by 

pollutants or lack of oxygen). 

RipFunc Riparian function A measure of riparian function that has been altered within 

the reach. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-43 

Attribute 

code Attribute name Definition 

TmpMonMn Temperature - daily 

minimum (by month) 

Minimum water temperatures within the stream reach reach 

during a month. 

TmpMonMx Temperature - daily 

maximum (by 

month) 

Maximum water temperatures within the stream reach 

reach during a month. 

TmpSptVar Temperature - 

spatial variation 

The extent of water temperature variation within the reach 

as influenced by inputs of groundwater. 

Turb Turbidity The relative extent of turbidity episodes within the stream 

reach. 

WdDeb Wood The amount of wood within the reach. Note definition of 

"large wood" under terms/clarification. 

Wdrwl Water withdrawals The number and relative size of water withdrawals in the 

stream reach. 

WidthMn Channel month 

Minimum width (ft) 

Average width of the wetted channel. If the stream is 

braided or contains multiple channels, then the width would 

represent the sum of the wetted widths along a transect that 

extends across all channels. 

WidthMx Channel month 

Maximum width (ft) 

Average width of the wetted channel during peak flow 

month (average monthly conditions). If the stream is 

braided or contains multiple channels, then the width would 

represent the sum of the wetted widths along a transect that 

extends across all channels. 

Out-of-Basin Survival Rates Assumptions 

Out-of-subbasin survival rates incorporated into the AHA modeling are listed in Tables H-10 to 

H-14; their derivation is described below. Each table lists survivals by life stage segment for 

baseline, current, and prospective future conditions. Prospective future conditions are the 

scenarios formulated in a stepwise fashion by adding in actions sequentially, each effect being 

added to the previous scenario (see Table 10-1). Survivals are listed for three life stage segments, 

followed by the combined survival across the three segments. The survival for each of the three 

life stage segments encompasses the following: 

1. Smolt to smolt (smt-smt) – survival of migrant smolts from the time of departing the 

subbasin (i.e., entry into the mainstem Columbia River) to the point of immediately 

downstream of Bonneville Dam; 

2. Estuary and ocean (est-ocn) – the smolt to adult survival rate (SAR) covering the entirety 

of the time spent in the Columbia River estuary (i.e., beginning immediately below 

Bonneville Dam) and ocean as smolts, sub-adults, and adults; and 

3. Adult to adult (adt-adt) – survival of returning adults from the time of departing the 

Columbia River estuary (i.e., beginning with passage at Bonneville Dam) to the point of 

entry into the natal subbasin. 

Baseline survival rates were formulated from several sources. The baseline smolt to smolt rates 

were provided for each population by NOAA Fisheries (correspondence between Ritchie Graves 

and Tracy Hillman dated August 9, 2007). The combined estuary and ocean survival rate was 

based on an average default value applied in EDT analysis, here rounded to an average of 7.5%. 

This average rate was applied to each of the populations modeled in AHA. The adult to adult rate 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-44 

was derived by using the survival rate applied in EDT (extracted by analyzing life history 

trajectories used in EDT modeling) and the average mainstem harvest rate for the baseline period 

(converted to a survival rate).1

The current years survival rates for each life stage segment k (Csurvk ) then are derived as 

Csurvk Bsurvk ×= ∏m , ji

 

where Bsurvk is baseline survival rate in life stage segment k

m , ji is the survival multiplier for survival factor i and scenario j (here the scenario is the 

current condition) 

The prospective future years (i.e., including future scenario actions) survival rates for each life 

stage segment k ( Psurvk ) are then derived as 

Psurvk Csurvk ×= ∏m , ji

 

 

1

 / The average harvest rate (0.1267) for years 1991-2003 was used for the baseline period, as given in Appendix G 

of the Comprehensive Analysis dated August 2007. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-45 

Table H-10. Out-of-subbasin survival rates applied in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current 

(C), and prospective future action scenarios for Fifteenmile Creek winter steelhead. Future action 

scenarios were modeled sequentially, where hydro (Hyd) actions were added to current 

conditions, predation (Pred) actions were added to hydro, estuarine (Est) actions were added to 

predation, and harvest (Harv) actions were added to estuarine. Decreased (MarLow) and 

increased (MarHigh) marine survival rate scenarios were then added to the combined prospective 

future action scenarios. 

Survival multiplier by factor 

Life stage Scen Hydro Avian Pikemin Estuary Harvest Marine 

Scen 

surv 

Smt-smt B 0.9140 

Est-ocn B 0.0750 

Adt-adt B 0.8466 

Smt-adt B 0.0580 

Smt-smt C 1.031 0.997 1.000 0.9395 

Est-ocn C 1.003 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt C 1.043 0.8830 

Smt-adt C 0.0624 

Smt-smt Hyd 1.002 1.000 1.000 0.9414 

Est-ocn Hyd 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Hyd 1.000 0.8830 

Smt-adt Hyd 0.0625 

Smt-smt Pred 1.002 1.034 1.010 0.9831 

Est-ocn Pred 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Pred 1.000 0.8830 

Smt-adt Pred 0.0653 

Smt-smt Est 1.002 1.034 1.010 0.9831 

Est-ocn Est 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Est 1.000 0.8830 

Smt-adt Est 0.0690 

Smt-smt Harv 1.002 1.034 1.010 0.9831 

Est-ocn Harv 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Harv 1.000 0.8830 

Smt-adt Harv 0.0690 

Smt-smt MarLow 1.002 1.034 1.010 0.9831 

Est-ocn MarLow 1.057 0.750 0.0596 

Adt-adt MarLow 1.000 0.8830 

Smt-adt MarLow 0.0518 

Smt-smt MarHigh 1.002 1.034 1.010 0.9831 

Est-ocn MarHigh 1.057 1.250 0.0994 

Adt-adt MarHigh 1.000 0.8830 

Smt-adt MarHigh 0.0863 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-46 

Table H-11. Out-of-subbasin survival rates applied in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current 

(C), and prospective future action scenarios for Deschutes River Eastside and Westside summer 

steelhead. Future action scenarios were modeled sequentially, where hydro (Hyd) actions were 

added to current conditions, predation (Pred) actions were added to hydro, estuarine (Est) actions 

were added to predation, and harvest (Harv) actions were added to estuarine. Decreased 

(MarLow) and increased (MarHigh) marine survival rate scenarios were then added to the 

combined prospective future action scenarios. 

Survival multiplier by factor 

Life stage Scen Hydro Avian Pikemin Estuary Harvest Marine 

Scen 

surv 

Smt-smt B 0.7580 

Est-ocn B 0.0750 

Adt-adt B 0.8015 

Smt-adt B 0.0456 

Smt-smt C 1.064 0.997 1.000 0.8041 

Est-ocn C 1.003 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt C 1.043 0.8360 

Smt-adt C 0.0506 

Smt-smt Hyd 1.051 1.000 1.000 0.8451 

Est-ocn Hyd 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Hyd 1.000 0.8360 

Smt-adt Hyd 0.0531 

Smt-smt Pred 1.051 1.034 1.010 0.8826 

Est-ocn Pred 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Pred 1.000 0.8360 

Smt-adt Pred 0.0555 

Smt-smt Est 1.051 1.034 1.010 0.8826 

Est-ocn Est 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Est 1.000 0.8360 

Smt-adt Est 0.0587 

Smt-smt Harv 1.051 1.034 1.010 0.8826 

Est-ocn Harv 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Harv 1.000 0.8360 

Smt-adt Harv 0.0587 

Smt-smt MarLow 1.051 1.034 1.010 0.8826 

Est-ocn MarLow 1.057 0.750 0.0596 

Adt-adt MarLow 1.000 0.8360 

Smt-adt MarLow 0.0440 

Smt-smt MarHigh 1.051 1.034 1.010 0.8826 

Est-ocn MarHigh 1.057 1.250 0.0994 

Adt-adt MarHigh 1.000 0.8360 

Smt-adt MarHigh 0.0733 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-47 

Table H-12. Out-of-subbasin survival rates applied in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current 

(C), and prospective future action scenarios for John Day River summer steelhead populations. 

Future action scenarios were modeled sequentially, where hydro (Hyd) actions were added to 

current conditions, predation (Pred) actions were added to hydro, estuarine (Est) actions were 

added to predation, and harvest (Harv) actions were added to estuarine. Decreased (MarLow) 

and increased (MarHigh) marine survival rate scenarios were then added to the combined 

prospective future action scenarios. 

Survival multiplier by factor 

Life stage Scen Hydro Avian Pikemin Estuary Harvest Marine 

Scen 

surv 

Smt-smt B 0.5850 

Est-ocn B 0.0750 

Adt-adt B 0.7526 

Smt-adt B 0.0330 

Smt-smt C 1.103 0.997 1.000 0.6433 

Est-ocn C 1.003 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt C 1.043 0.7849 

Smt-adt C 0.0380 

Smt-smt Hyd 1.100 1.000 1.000 0.7077 

Est-ocn Hyd 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Hyd 1.000 0.7849 

Smt-adt Hyd 0.0418 

Smt-smt Pred 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn Pred 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Pred 1.000 0.7849 

Smt-adt Pred 0.0436 

Smt-smt Est 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn Est 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Est 1.000 0.7849 

Smt-adt Est 0.0461 

Smt-smt Harv 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn Harv 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Harv 1.000 0.7849 

Smt-adt Harv 0.0461 

Smt-smt MarLow 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn MarLow 1.057 0.750 0.0596 

Adt-adt MarLow 1.000 0.7849 

Smt-adt MarLow 0.0346 

Smt-smt MarHigh 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn MarHigh 1.057 1.250 0.0994 

Adt-adt MarHigh 1.000 0.7849 

Smt-adt MarHigh 0.0577 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-48 

Table H-13. Out-of-subbasin survival rates applied in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current 

(C), and prospective future action scenarios for Umatilla River summer steelhead. Future action 

scenarios were modeled sequentially, where hydro (Hyd) actions were added to current 

conditions, predation (Pred) actions were added to hydro, estuarine (Est) actions were added to 

predation, and harvest (Harv) actions were added to estuarine. Decreased (MarLow) and 

increased (MarHigh) marine survival rate scenarios were then added to the combined prospective 

future action scenarios. 

Survival multiplier by factor 

Life stage Scen Hydro Avian Pikemin Estuary Harvest Marine 

Scen 

surv 

Smt-smt B 0.5850 

Est-ocn B 0.0750 

Adt-adt B 0.7577 

Smt-adt B 0.0332 

Smt-smt C 1.103 1.000 0.997 0.6433 

Est-ocn C 1.003 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt C 1.043 0.7902 

Smt-adt C 0.0382 

Smt-smt Hyd 1.100 1.000 1.000 0.7077 

Est-ocn Hyd 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Hyd 1.000 0.7902 

Smt-adt Hyd 0.0421 

Smt-smt Pred 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn Pred 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Pred 1.000 0.7902 

Smt-adt Pred 0.0439 

Smt-smt Est 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn Est 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Est 1.000 0.7902 

Smt-adt Est 0.0464 

Smt-smt Harv 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn Harv 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Harv 1.000 0.7902 

Smt-adt Harv 0.0464 

Smt-smt MarLow 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn MarLow 1.057 0.750 0.0596 

Adt-adt MarLow 1.000 0.7902 

Smt-adt MarLow 0.0348 

Smt-smt MarHigh 1.100 1.034 1.010 0.7390 

Est-ocn MarHigh 1.057 1.250 0.0994 

Adt-adt MarHigh 1.000 0.7902 

Smt-adt MarHigh 0.0580 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-49 

Table H-14. Out-of-subbasin survival rates applied in AHA modeling for baseline (B), current 

(C), and prospective future action scenarios for Walla Walla River summer steelhead. Future 

action scenarios were modeled sequentially, where hydro (Hyd) actions were added to current 

conditions, predation (Pred) actions were added to hydro, estuarine (Est) actions were added to 

predation, and harvest (Harv) actions were added to estuarine. Decreased (MarLow) and 

increased (MarHigh) marine survival rate scenarios were then added to the combined prospective 

future action scenarios. 

Survival multiplier by factor 

Life stage Scen Hydro Avian Pikemin Estuary Harvest Marine 

Scen 

surv 

Smt-smt B 0.5150 

Est-ocn B 0.0750 

Adt-adt B 0.6818 

Smt-adt B 0.0263 

Smt-smt C 1.143 0.997 1.000 0.5869 

Est-ocn C 1.003 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt C 1.043 0.7111 

Smt-adt C 0.0314 

Smt-smt Hyd 1.122 1.000 1.000 0.6585 

Est-ocn Hyd 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Hyd 1.000 0.7111 

Smt-adt Hyd 0.0352 

Smt-smt Pred 1.122 1.034 1.010 0.6877 

Est-ocn Pred 1.000 1.000 0.0752 

Adt-adt Pred 1.000 0.7111 

Smt-adt Pred 0.0368 

Smt-smt Est 1.122 1.034 1.010 0.6877 

Est-ocn Est 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Est 1.000 0.7111 

Smt-adt Est 0.0389 

Smt-smt Harv 1.122 1.034 1.010 0.6877 

Est-ocn Harv 1.057 1.000 0.0795 

Adt-adt Harv 1.000 0.7111 

Smt-adt Harv 0.0389 

Smt-smt MarLow 1.122 1.034 1.010 0.6877 

Est-ocn MarLow 1.057 0.750 0.0596 

Adt-adt MarLow 1.000 0.7111 

Smt-adt MarLow 0.0292 

Smt-smt MarHigh 1.122 1.034 1.010 0.6877 

Est-ocn MarHigh 1.057 1.250 0.0994 

Adt-adt MarHigh 1.000 0.7111 

Smt-adt MarHigh 0.0486 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-50 

Part 2: Summaries of Diagnostic Reports 

A series of graphic reports are presented here giving additional information about the predicted 

outcomes of the subbasin habitat scenarios analyzed in Section 10. These reports are extracted 

from output produced by EDT. 

Summaries from three different EDT reports are provided for each steelhead population. The 

first report—the Baseline Diagnostic Report—summarizes basic diagnostic information for each 

population under baseline habitat conditions within the relevant subbasin. It is based on a 

comparison of habitat conditions within the baseline period to the pre-development state (see 

Lichatowich et al. 1995). Some of this information served as the basis of parts of the diagnostic 

summaries described in Section 8 of this report. The baseline diagnostic report serves here to 

help illustrate—in conjunction the other reports described below—the extent that subbasin 

habitat factors responsible for changes in population performance are expected to be affected by 

the proposed habitat scenarios. It shows the relative extent that population performance has been 

affected by habitat changes (due to land and water uses) within each individual stream reach or 

geographic area within the subbasin.2

 One aspect of the report displays the potential benefits of 

full restoration or full protection (i.e., avoiding future habitat degradation) for each stream reach 

or geographic area. This report (together with a more detailed presentation in the full EDT 

output) summarizes the limiting factors analysis produced by the EDT model. 

The second report—the Scenario Profile Report—summarizes the extent of changes to the 

habitat factors expected to result from a habitat action scenario once implemented within a 

subbasin. It identifies the relative gain (or loss in some cases) in population performance that 

would occur as a result of the scenario’s effect within the subbasin. The extent of changes to 

population performance are shown for the scenario’s effects within each stream reach or 

geographic area. 

The third report—the Scenario Diagnostic Report—is like the baseline diagnostic report, only 

instead of comparing the baseline to the pre-development state, it compares the habitat scenario 

to the pre-development condition. It identifies the geographic areas and habitat factors that would 

be expected to still be inhibiting population performance after action implementation relative to 

the pre-development habitat condition. The report is essentially a limiting factors analysis of the 

habitat as it is predicted to exist following implementation and maturation of effects of the 

habitat scenario. As such, it helps identify areas/factors where additional habitat actions might be 

considered. Hence, it can serve to further refine proposed actions as a part of future planning 

efforts. 

Each report consists of two figures. The first one is a “tornado chart” displaying the potential 

benefits from restoration or protection actions—or in the case of the Scenario Profile Report the 

 

2

 / The spatial scale used in this report was defined by the individuals who did the original EDT analysis for 

subbasin planning. In some cases, individuals grouped stream reaches into geographic areas for the sake of 

simplifying the diagnosis. In some subbasins, reaches were not grouped in such a manner. The graphic reports 

presented in this appendix employ whatever scale was used in subbasin planning. For definitions of stream reaches 

or geographic areas, see the appropriate subbasin report. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-51 

relative gain/loss of the habitat scenario. Geographic areas near the top of the chart offer the 

highest potential for gain in performance (or that would result in the highest gain in the Scenario 

Profile Report). The charts show an assigned level of benefit, listed as A through E, where A 

areas are those the greatest amount of benefit and D and E provide essentially no benefit. The 

charts also show the expectation of amount of benefit/loss in population performance as the 

percentage of increase or decrease in a particular performance measure. (See Section 10 for 

definitions of performance measures.) 

Each tornado chart is followed by a second figure giving a summary of the diagnostics for the 

various habitat factors affecting survival within each stream reach or geographic area. This chart 

summarizes where and what factors are most responsible for the loss in population performance. 

For the Scenario Profile Report, it shows the relative extent that each factor is expected to be 

affected by the scenario as pertaining to population performance. The chart is meant only to be a 

summary snapshot of the effects of each factor (or the effects on each factor for the Scenario 

Profile Report). 

Results for the habitat scenario consisting of all subbasin actions (both Priority 1 and 2) at 100 

years are presented. For the Deschutes westside population, results are shown passage provided 

at the Pelton-Round Butte Complex. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-52 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Eightmile Cr-8 A5A5

Ramsey Cr-4 A 1 B 15

Fifteenmile Cr-9 B 11 A 6

Fivemile Cr-4 B 14 A 3

Ramsey Cr-3 B 9 B 10

Eightmile Cr-10 A 5 C 17

Fivemile Cr-3 D 23 A 1

Fifteenmile Cr-12 A 2 C 23

Fifteenmile Cr-8 C 18 B 8

Fifteenmile Cr-11 B 10 C 18

Fifteenmile Cr-7 D 21 B 7

Fifteenmile Cr-5 E 28 A 2

Fifteenmile Cr-13 A 3 C 28

Fivemile Cr MF-1 B 7 C 26

Eightmile Cr-7 B 8 C 26

Fifteenmile Cr-3 D 23 B 13

Ramsey Cr-1 D 20 B 16

Eightmile Cr-6 E 33 A 4

Fifteenmile Cr-14 A 3 D 34

Fivemile Cr-1 E 27 B 12

Fifteenmile Cr-6 E 30 B 11

Fifteenmile Cr-4 E 36 B 9

Eightmile Cr-3 E 33 B 14

Eightmile Cr-9 C 16 D 32

Fifteenmile Cr-10 C 17 D 31

Fifteenmile Cr-16 B 12 D 36

Fivemile Cr-2 E 30 C 19

Eightmile Cr-4 E 26 C 25

Cedar Cr B 14 D 38

Ramsey Cr-2 C 19 D 33

Fifteenmile Cr-15 B 13 D 40

Eightmile Cr-5 E 37 C 21

Eightmile Cr-13 E 41 C 19

Eightmile Cr-2 E 38 C 22

Dry Cr-2 E 40 C 23

Eightmile Cr-1 E 35 C 28

Fivemile Cr SF-1 D 22 E 44

Ramsey Cr-6 D 25 E 41

Dry Cr-1 E 39 C 28

Fifteenmile Cr-1 E 29 D 39

Eightmile Cr-12 E 32 E 41

Ramsey Cr-7 E 41 D 35

Fivemile Cr MF-2 E 41 D 37

Ramsey Cr-5 E 41 E 43

Eightmile Cr-11 E 41 E 45

Eightmile Cr-14 E 41 E 45

Fifteenmile Cr-2 E 41 E 45

Fivemile Cr MF-3 E 41 E 45

Ramsey Cr-8 E 41 E 45

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-30% 0% 30% -30% 0% 30% -30% 0% 30%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-53 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

Fifteenmile Cr-1

Fifteenmile Cr-2

Fifteenmile Cr-3

Eightmile Cr-1

Fivemile Cr-1

Fivemile Cr-2

Fivemile Cr-3

Fivemile Cr-4

Fivemile Cr SF-1

Fivemile Cr MF-1

Fivemile Cr MF-2

Fivemile Cr MF-3

Eightmile Cr-2

Eightmile Cr-3

Eightmile Cr-4

Eightmile Cr-5

Eightmile Cr-6

Eightmile Cr-7

Eightmile Cr-8

Eightmile Cr-9

Eightmile Cr-10

Eightmile Cr-11

Eightmile Cr-12

Eightmile Cr-13

Eightmile Cr-14

Fifteenmile Cr-4

Fifteenmile Cr-5

Fifteenmile Cr-6

Dry Cr-1

Dry Cr-2

Fifteenmile Cr-7

Fifteenmile Cr-8

Ramsey Cr-1

Ramsey Cr-2

Ramsey Cr-3

Ramsey Cr-4

Ramsey Cr-5

Ramsey Cr-6

Ramsey Cr-7

Ramsey Cr-8

Fifteenmile Cr-9

Fifteenmile Cr-10

Fifteenmile Cr-11

Fifteenmile Cr-12

Fifteenmile Cr-13

Cedar Cr

Fifteenmile Cr-14

Fifteenmile Cr-15

Fifteenmile Cr-16

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-54 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Fifteenmile Cr-4 C1B9

Fivemile Cr-3 E 14 A 1

Fivemile Cr-4 E 14 A 2

Eightmile Cr-8 E 14 A 3

Eightmile Cr-6 E 14 A 4

Fifteenmile Cr-5 E 14 A 4

Fifteenmile Cr-3 C 3 C 16

Eightmile Cr-13 D 7 C 13

Fifteenmile Cr-9 E 14 A 6

Fivemile Cr-1 C 5 C 15

Fifteenmile Cr-8 E 14 B 7

Fifteenmile Cr-7 E 14 B 8

Eightmile Cr-1 C 2 C 21

Fifteenmile Cr-6 E 14 B 9

Eightmile Cr-4 C 4 C 21

Eightmile Cr-5 C 6 C 19

Ramsey Cr-1 E 14 C 11

Ramsey Cr-3 E 14 C 11

Fifteenmile Cr-11 E 14 C 13

Eightmile Cr-3 E 14 C 17

Eightmile Cr-10 E 14 C 18

Eightmile Cr-2 D 9 C 24

Eightmile Cr-7 E 14 C 20

Fivemile Cr-2 D 8 C 26

Dry Cr-1 E 10 C 25

Fifteenmile Cr-10 E 14 C 21

Dry Cr-2 E 11 C 27

Ramsey Cr-4 E 14 C 27

Fifteenmile Cr-12 E 14 D 29

Eightmile Cr-9 E 14 D 30

Fivemile Cr MF-1 E 14 D 31

Ramsey Cr-2 E 14 D 32

Fifteenmile Cr-1 E 12 D 35

Fifteenmile Cr-13 E 14 D 33

Fifteenmile Cr-14 E 14 D 34

Fifteenmile Cr-16 E 14 D 36

Eightmile Cr-12 E 14 D 37

Ramsey Cr-5 E 13 E 38

Cedar Cr E 14 E 39

Fifteenmile Cr-15 E 14 E 39

Ramsey Cr-6 E 14 E 39

Fivemile Cr SF-1 E 14 E 42

Eightmile Cr-11 E 14 E 43

Eightmile Cr-14 E 14 E 43

Fifteenmile Cr-2 E 14 E 43

Fivemile Cr MF-2 E 14 E 43

Fivemile Cr MF-3 E 14 E 43

Ramsey Cr-7 E 14 E 43

Ramsey Cr-8 E 14 E 43

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

-20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-55 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Fifteenmile Cr-1

Fifteenmile Cr-2

Fifteenmile Cr-3

Eightmile Cr-1

Fivemile Cr-1

Fivemile Cr-2

Fivemile Cr-3

Fivemile Cr-4

Fivemile Cr SF-1

Fivemile Cr MF-1

Fivemile Cr MF-2

Fivemile Cr MF-3

Eightmile Cr-2

Eightmile Cr-3

Eightmile Cr-4

Eightmile Cr-5

Eightmile Cr-6

Eightmile Cr-7

Eightmile Cr-8

Eightmile Cr-9

Eightmile Cr-10

Eightmile Cr-11

Eightmile Cr-12

Eightmile Cr-13

Eightmile Cr-14

Fifteenmile Cr-4

Fifteenmile Cr-5

Fifteenmile Cr-6

Dry Cr-1

Dry Cr-2

Fifteenmile Cr-7

Fifteenmile Cr-8

Ramsey Cr-1

Ramsey Cr-2

Ramsey Cr-3

Ramsey Cr-4

Ramsey Cr-5

Ramsey Cr-6

Ramsey Cr-7

Ramsey Cr-8

Fifteenmile Cr-9

Fifteenmile Cr-10

Fifteenmile Cr-11

Fifteenmile Cr-12

Fifteenmile Cr-13

Cedar Cr

Fifteenmile Cr-14

Fifteenmile Cr-15

Fifteenmile Cr-16

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-56 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Eightmile Cr-8 A1A1

Fifteenmile Cr-5 B2B7

Fifteenmile Cr-9 B3A6

Fivemile Cr-3 B4B8

Ramsey Cr-4 B8A4

Fivemile Cr-4 B 5 B 11

Fifteenmile Cr-4 B 12 A 5

Ramsey Cr-3 B 15 A 2

Fifteenmile Cr-7 B 8 B 13

Eightmile Cr-10 B 6 B 17

Eightmile Cr-6 B 6 B 19

Fifteenmile Cr-12 B 10 B 15

Fifteenmile Cr-3 C 23 A 2

Fifteenmile Cr-8 B 12 B 15

Fivemile Cr-1 C 21 B 9

Eightmile Cr-3 C 22 B 10

Fifteenmile Cr-13 C 20 B 12

Fivemile Cr MF-1 B 15 B 17

Eightmile Cr-14 B 10 C 25

Fifteenmile Cr-6 B 14 C 21

Fifteenmile Cr-14 C 17 C 22

Fifteenmile Cr-11 C 19 C 27

Ramsey Cr-1 C 24 C 24

Eightmile Cr-4 C 27 C 23

Eightmile Cr-5 C 24 C 26

Eightmile Cr-7 C 18 D 36

Fivemile Cr-2 D 36 B 19

Ramsey Cr-7 E 42 B 14

Eightmile Cr-2 C 28 D 30

Eightmile Cr-9 C 26 D 32

Dry Cr-1 C 30 D 29

Dry Cr-2 C 28 D 31

Eightmile Cr-1 D 33 D 32

Fifteenmile Cr-16 D 33 D 34

Fifteenmile Cr-10 C 31 D 37

Fivemile Cr MF-2 E 42 C 27

Fifteenmile Cr-15 C 31 D 40

Ramsey Cr-2 D 37 D 35

Cedar Cr D 35 D 40

Fifteenmile Cr-1 D 39 D 39

Ramsey Cr-6 E 41 D 37

Eightmile Cr-12 D 38 E 43

Fivemile Cr SF-1 E 40 E 42

Eightmile Cr-11 E 42 E 44

Eightmile Cr-13 E 42 E 44

Fifteenmile Cr-2 E 42 E 44

Fivemile Cr MF-3 E 42 E 44

Ramsey Cr-5 E 42 E 44

Ramsey Cr-8 E 42 E 44

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-57 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Fifteenmile Creek Winter Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

Fifteenmile Cr-1

Fifteenmile Cr-2

Fifteenmile Cr-3

Eightmile Cr-1

Fivemile Cr-1

Fivemile Cr-2

Fivemile Cr-3

Fivemile Cr-4

Fivemile Cr SF-1

Fivemile Cr MF-1

Fivemile Cr MF-2

Fivemile Cr MF-3

Eightmile Cr-2

Eightmile Cr-3

Eightmile Cr-4

Eightmile Cr-5

Eightmile Cr-6

Eightmile Cr-7

Eightmile Cr-8

Eightmile Cr-9

Eightmile Cr-10

Eightmile Cr-11

Eightmile Cr-12

Eightmile Cr-13

Eightmile Cr-14

Fifteenmile Cr-4

Fifteenmile Cr-5

Fifteenmile Cr-6

Dry Cr-1

Dry Cr-2

Fifteenmile Cr-7

Fifteenmile Cr-8

Ramsey Cr-1

Ramsey Cr-2

Ramsey Cr-3

Ramsey Cr-4

Ramsey Cr-5

Ramsey Cr-6

Ramsey Cr-7

Ramsey Cr-8

Fifteenmile Cr-9

Fifteenmile Cr-10

Fifteenmile Cr-11

Fifteenmile Cr-12

Fifteenmile Cr-13

Cedar Cr

Fifteenmile Cr-14

Fifteenmile Cr-15

Fifteenmile Cr-16

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-58 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

L Deschutes MS-17 A1A6

L Deschutes MS-16 A 2 A 13

Trout Cr-5 B 10 A 9

L Deschutes MS-18 B 5 B 16

Buck Hollow Cr-1 C 23 A 1

Buck Hollow Cr-3 C 26 A 3

Trout Cr-12 B 6 B 24

Thorn Hollow C 25 A 8

Deep Cr-2 (Bakeoven) D 30 A 5

L Deschutes MS-15 A 3 C 33

L Deschutes MS-6 D 33 A 4

L Deschutes MS-12 B 8 C 30

L Deschutes MS-14 C 14 C 28

L Deschutes MS-8 D 32 A 13

L Deschutes MS-13 B 10 C 37

Deep Cr-1 (Bakeoven) D 36 A 12

Foley Cr-2 C 13 C 35

L Deschutes MS-19 A 4 C 45

Bakeoven Cr-1 C 17 C 33

Buck Hollow Cr-4 D 30 B 21

Ward Cr-1 D 29 B 22

Trout Cr-13 B 9 C 43

Deep Cr-3 (Bakeoven) D 28 B 25

Trout Cr-14 B 7 C 47

Buck Hollow Cr-2 D 42 B 15

Little Trout Cr D 38 B 25

Trout Cr-11 C 24 C 40

Dutchman Cr C 15 D 50

Bakeoven Cr-4 E 57 A 10

Bakeoven Cr-3 E 47 B 22

Cartwright Cr C 18 D 52

Foley Cr-1 C 19 D 53

Cottonwood Cr-1 E 54 B 19

Trout Cr-7 E 66 A 7

Potlid Cr C 12 D 63

Board Hollow Cr C 21 D 55

Trout Cr-15 C 16 D 64

Trout Cr-3 E 78 A 2

L Deschutes MS-5 E 51 C 32

Bakeoven Cr-2 E 49 C 36

Trout Cr-6 E 75 A 11

Big Log Cr-2 D 27 D 62

Tenmile Cr E 61 C 28

L Deschutes MS-4 C 22 E 70

Auger Cr D 33 D 60

Amity Cr E 75 B 19

Beaver Cr (Trout) D 37 D 57

Clover Cr D 44 D 51

Trout Cr-8 E 78 B 17

Trout Cr-4 E 69 C 27

L Deschutes MS-7 E 55 C 42

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25%

Continued next page 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-59 

Category/rank Category/rank Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Geographic Area

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead - continued

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

Maupin Trail Canyon E 49 D 48

Nena Cr-1 D 42 D 55

L Deschutes MS-2 C 20 E 78

Wapinitia Cr-1 D 35 E 65

Opal Cr-2 E 62 C 40

Antelope Cr-4 E 87 B 17

Big Log Cr-1 D 38 E 67

Trout Cr-9 E 70 C 37

Big Whetstone Cr E 48 D 60

Warm Springs MS-1 D 41 E 67

Antelope Cr-1 E 70 C 39

L Deschutes MS-11 D 40 E 73

Stag Canyon D 44 E 69

Opal Cr-1 E 56 D 58

Trout Cr-1 E 70 D 49

Mud Springs Cr-1 E 66 D 54

Antelope Cr-2 E 90 C 31

Skookum Cr E 46 E 75

Trout Cr-2 E 78 C 43

Eagle Cr E 59 E 66

Cottonwood Cr-2 E 70 D 59

Hauser Canyon E 60 E 72

Trout Cr-10 E 90 C 46

L Deschutes MS-1 E 51 E 87

Ferry Canyon E 68 E 71

L Deschutes MS-3 E 53 E 86

Buck Hollow Cr-5 E 64 E 81

Finnegan Canyon E 65 E 80

L Deschutes MS-9 E 58 E 87

Macken Canyon E 62 E 83

Oak Canyon E 70 E 78

Bakeoven Cr-5 E 84 E 74

Macks Canyon E 78 E 81

Trout Cr-16 E 77 E 84

Hay Cr-1 E 89 E 76

Mud Springs Cr-2 E 90 E 76

Robin Cr E 78 E 91

Fall Canyon E 85 E 89

Jones Canyon E 90 E 85

Tub Springs Canyon E 78 E 97

L Deschutes MS-20 E 86 E 92

Booten Cr E 90 E 90

Mud Springs Cr-3 E 87 E 95

Trail Hollow Cr E 90 E 93

Hay Cr-2 E 90 E 94

Mud Springs Cr-4 E 90 E 96

Antelope Cr-3 E 90 E 97

Hay Cr-3 E 90 E 97

L Deschutes MS-10 E 90 E 97

Mud Springs Cr-5 E 90 E 97

Mud Springs Cr-6 E 90 E 97

Ochoco Gulch Cr E 90 E 97

Sagebrush Cr E 90 E 97

White R MS-1 E 90 E 97

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-60 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

L Deschutes MS-1

L Deschutes MS-2

Fall Canyon

L Deschutes MS-3

L Deschutes MS-4

Macks Canyon

L Deschutes MS-5

Ferry Canyon

L Deschutes MS-6

Jones Canyon

L Deschutes MS-7

Oak Canyon

L Deschutes MS-8

Buck Hollow Cr-1

Finnegan Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-2

Hauser Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-3

Macken Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-4

Thorn Hollow

Buck Hollow Cr-5

L Deschutes MS-9

L Deschutes MS-10

L Deschutes MS-11

White R MS-1

L Deschutes MS-12

Bakeoven Cr-1

Trail Hollow Cr

Bakeoven Cr-2

Booten Cr

Bakeoven Cr-3

Robin Cr

Bakeoven Cr-4

Deep Cr-1 (Bakeoven)

Cottonwood Cr-1

Ochoco Gulch Cr

Cottonwood Cr-2

Deep Cr-2 (Bakeoven)

Maupin Trail Canyon

Deep Cr-3 (Bakeoven)

Bakeoven Cr-5

L Deschutes MS-13

Stag Canyon

L Deschutes MS-14

Wapinitia Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-15

Nena Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-16

Eagle Cr

L Deschutes MS-17

Skookum Cr

L Deschutes MS-18

Warm Springs MS-1

L Deschutes MS-19

Trout Cr-1

Geographic area priority

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Continued next page
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-61 

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead - continued

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Geographic area priority Attribute class priority for restoration

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Tenmile Cr

Trout Cr-2

Mud Springs Cr-1

Mud Springs Cr-2

Mud Springs Cr-3

Sagebrush Cr

Mud Springs Cr-4

Mud Springs Cr-5

Mud Springs Cr-6

Trout Cr-3

Hay Cr-1

Hay Cr-2

Hay Cr-3

Trout Cr-4

Antelope Cr-1

Ward Cr-1

Antelope Cr-2

Antelope Cr-3

Antelope Cr-4

Trout Cr-5

Tub Springs Canyon

Trout Cr-6

Little Trout Cr

Trout Cr-7

Big Whetstone Cr

Trout Cr-8

Clover Cr

Trout Cr-9

Beaver Cr (Trout)

Trout Cr-10

Amity Cr

Trout Cr-11

Board Hollow Cr

Trout Cr-12

Foley Cr-1

Big Log Cr-1

Dutchman Cr

Big Log Cr-2

Foley Cr-2

Trout Cr-13

Cartwright Cr

Trout Cr-14

Opal Cr-1

Auger Cr

Opal Cr-2

Trout Cr-15

Potlid Cr

Trout Cr-16

L Deschutes MS-20

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-62 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Buck Hollow Cr-1 E 19 A 1

Buck Hollow Cr-3 E 19 A 2

Trout Cr-7 E 19 A 3

L Deschutes MS-17 E 19 A 4

Bakeoven Cr-4 E 19 A 5

Trout Cr-3 E 19 A 6

Buck Hollow Cr-2 E 19 A 7

Trout Cr-8 E 19 A 8

L Deschutes MS-18 E 19 A 9

Trout Cr-5 E 19 B 10

Bakeoven Cr-3 E 19 B 11

Buck Hollow Cr-4 E 19 B 12

Antelope Cr-4 E 19 B 13

Deep Cr-2 (Bakeoven) E 19 B 14

Trout Cr-12 E 19 B 15

Thorn Hollow E 19 B 16

Antelope Cr-2 E 19 B 17

Bakeoven Cr-1 E 19 B 17

Bakeoven Cr-2 E 19 B 17

Antelope Cr-1 E 19 B 20

Trout Cr-6 E 19 B 21

Ward Cr-1 E 19 B 22

Little Trout Cr E 19 B 23

Trout Cr-4 E 19 B 24

L Deschutes MS-19 E 19 B 25

Deep Cr-1 (Bakeoven) E 19 C 26

Trout Cr-11 E 19 C 27

Foley Cr-2 E 19 C 28

Trout Cr-13 E 19 C 29

Deep Cr-3 (Bakeoven) E 19 C 30

Opal Cr-2 E 19 C 30

Trout Cr-1 E 19 C 32

Trout Cr-9 E 19 C 33

Trout Cr-2 E 19 C 34

Dutchman Cr E 19 C 35

Cottonwood Cr-1 E 19 C 36

Foley Cr-1 E 19 C 37

Tenmile Cr E 19 C 38

Trout Cr-14 E 19 C 39

Board Hollow Cr E 19 D 40

Trout Cr-10 E 19 D 41

Opal Cr-1 E 19 D 42

Cartwright Cr E 19 D 43

L Deschutes MS-6 E 19 D 44

Mud Springs Cr-1 E 19 D 44

L Deschutes MS-4 E 3 E 61

Beaver Cr (Trout) E 19 D 46

Auger Cr E 19 D 47

Clover Cr E 19 D 48

Mud Springs Cr-2 C 1 E 66

Trout Cr-15 E 19 D 48

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15%

Continued next page 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-63 

Category/rank Category/rank Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Geographic Area

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead - continued

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

Maupin Trail Canyon E 19 D 50

Amity Cr E 19 D 51

L Deschutes MS-7 E 8 E 63

Nena Cr-1 E 19 D 52

Potlid Cr E 19 D 53

Big Log Cr-2 E 19 E 54

Bakeoven Cr-5 E 10 E 64

Big Whetstone Cr E 19 E 55

Hay Cr-1 E 2 E 72

L Deschutes MS-8 E 19 E 56

Big Log Cr-1 E 19 E 57

L Deschutes MS-5 E 12 E 64

Wapinitia Cr-1 E 19 E 58

Warm Springs MS-1 E 19 E 59

Cottonwood Cr-2 E 19 E 60

L Deschutes MS-20 E 6 E 73

Eagle Cr E 19 E 62

Robin Cr E 7 E 74

Booten Cr E 3 E 80

Hauser Canyon E 19 E 66

L Deschutes MS-3 E 15 E 70

Trail Hollow Cr E 5 E 80

Buck Hollow Cr-5 E 13 E 74

Finnegan Canyon E 19 E 68

Skookum Cr E 19 E 69

L Deschutes MS-2 E 9 E 80

Trout Cr-16 E 19 E 70

Tub Springs Canyon E 11 E 80

Ochoco Gulch Cr E 13 E 80

Hay Cr-2 E 17 E 77

Macken Canyon E 19 E 76

Mud Springs Cr-4 E 16 E 79

Mud Springs Cr-3 E 19 E 78

White R MS-1 E 17 E 80

Antelope Cr-3 E 19 E 80

Fall Canyon E 19 E 80

Ferry Canyon E 19 E 80

Hay Cr-3 E 19 E 80

Jones Canyon E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-1 E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-10 E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-11 E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-12 E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-13 E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-14 E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-15 E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-16 E 19 E 80

L Deschutes MS-9 E 19 E 80

Macks Canyon E 19 E 80

Mud Springs Cr-5 E 19 E 80

Mud Springs Cr-6 E 19 E 80

Oak Canyon E 19 E 80

Sagebrush Cr E 19 E 80

Stag Canyon E 19 E 80

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-64 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

L Deschutes MS-1

L Deschutes MS-2

Fall Canyon

L Deschutes MS-3

L Deschutes MS-4

Macks Canyon

L Deschutes MS-5

Ferry Canyon

L Deschutes MS-6

Jones Canyon

L Deschutes MS-7

Oak Canyon

L Deschutes MS-8

Buck Hollow Cr-1

Finnegan Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-2

Hauser Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-3

Macken Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-4

Thorn Hollow

Buck Hollow Cr-5

L Deschutes MS-9

L Deschutes MS-10

L Deschutes MS-11

White R MS-1

L Deschutes MS-12

Bakeoven Cr-1

Trail Hollow Cr

Bakeoven Cr-2

Booten Cr

Bakeoven Cr-3

Robin Cr

Bakeoven Cr-4

Deep Cr-1 (Bakeoven)

Cottonwood Cr-1

Ochoco Gulch Cr

Cottonwood Cr-2

Deep Cr-2 (Bakeoven)

Maupin Trail Canyon

Deep Cr-3 (Bakeoven)

Bakeoven Cr-5

L Deschutes MS-13

Stag Canyon

L Deschutes MS-14

Wapinitia Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-15

Nena Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-16

Eagle Cr

L Deschutes MS-17

Skookum Cr

L Deschutes MS-18

Warm Springs MS-1

L Deschutes MS-19

Trout Cr-1

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Continued next page 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-65 

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead - continued

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Tenmile Cr

Trout Cr-2

Mud Springs Cr-1

Mud Springs Cr-2

Mud Springs Cr-3

Sagebrush Cr

Mud Springs Cr-4

Mud Springs Cr-5

Mud Springs Cr-6

Trout Cr-3

Hay Cr-1

Hay Cr-2

Hay Cr-3

Trout Cr-4

Antelope Cr-1

Ward Cr-1

Antelope Cr-2

Antelope Cr-3

Antelope Cr-4

Trout Cr-5

Tub Springs Canyon

Trout Cr-6

Little Trout Cr

Trout Cr-7

Big Whetstone Cr

Trout Cr-8

Clover Cr

Trout Cr-9

Beaver Cr (Trout)

Trout Cr-10

Amity Cr

Trout Cr-11

Board Hollow Cr

Trout Cr-12

Foley Cr-1

Big Log Cr-1

Dutchman Cr

Big Log Cr-2

Foley Cr-2

Trout Cr-13

Cartwright Cr

Trout Cr-14

Opal Cr-1

Auger Cr

Opal Cr-2

Trout Cr-15

Potlid Cr

Trout Cr-16

L Deschutes MS-20

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-66 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Buck Hollow Cr-1 A2A5

L Deschutes MS-16 A6A3

Trout Cr-3 A9A6

Trout Cr-5 A 7 A 12

Buck Hollow Cr-3 A 3 B 17

L Deschutes MS-18 A 3 B 20

Trout Cr-6 B 19 A 6

Deep Cr-2 (Bakeoven) B 26 A 2

L Deschutes MS-6 B 27 A 1

Bakeoven Cr-4 B 11 B 23

Buck Hollow Cr-2 B 13 B 21

Trout Cr-7 A 5 B 29

Thorn Hollow B 31 A 4

Antelope Cr-4 B 22 B 15

L Deschutes MS-15 B 15 B 22

L Deschutes MS-8 B 34 A 6

Buck Hollow Cr-4 B 12 C 31

Trout Cr-4 B 19 B 24

L Deschutes MS-17 A 1 C 44

Trout Cr-12 A 10 C 35

Bakeoven Cr-3 B 16 C 30

Deep Cr-1 (Bakeoven) B 38 A 10

L Deschutes MS-12 B 35 B 13

Little Trout Cr B 24 B 24

Ward Cr-1 B 22 B 28

Trout Cr-8 B 14 C 38

Tenmile Cr B 42 B 18

Antelope Cr-2 B 21 C 43

Cottonwood Cr-1 C 53 A 11

Bakeoven Cr-2 B 32 C 33

L Deschutes MS-2 B 28 C 37

Trout Cr-14 B 18 C 49

Deep Cr-3 (Bakeoven) C 44 B 26

Foley Cr-2 B 30 C 42

L Deschutes MS-4 B 33 C 39

Trout Cr-9 B 40 C 32

Amity Cr C 64 A 9

Bakeoven Cr-1 B 17 D 56

L Deschutes MS-13 C 55 B 18

Antelope Cr-1 B 25 C 49

L Deschutes MS-14 C 65 B 13

L Deschutes MS-19 A 7 D 72

Clover Cr C 44 C 39

Trout Cr-11 B 36 C 47

Trout Cr-13 B 28 D 58

L Deschutes MS-5 D 72 B 16

L Deschutes MS-7 C 62 B 27

Trout Cr-1 B 36 D 57

Trout Cr-2 C 48 C 45

Dutchman Cr B 38 D 58

Trout Cr-10 C 63 C 34

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-5% 0% 5% -5% 0% 5% -5% 0% 5%

Continued next page 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-67 

Category/rank Category/rank Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Geographic Area

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

Potlid Cr B 41 D 58

Maupin Trail Canyon C 65 C 35

Opal Cr-2 C 47 D 53

Board Hollow Cr B 42 D 64

Nena Cr-1 C 60 C 46

Mud Springs Cr-4 C 59 C 51

Beaver Cr (Trout) C 50 D 61

Big Whetstone Cr C 57 D 54

Cartwright Cr C 49 D 63

Mud Springs Cr-1 C 57 D 55

Mud Springs Cr-6 C 68 C 48

Trout Cr-15 C 51 D 67

Cottonwood Cr-2 D 81 C 39

Big Log Cr-2 C 54 D 67

Hay Cr-3 D 75 C 51

Auger Cr C 51 D 76

Foley Cr-1 C 46 D 81

Opal Cr-1 C 56 D 74

L Deschutes MS-11 C 69 D 66

Hay Cr-1 C 70 D 67

Warm Springs MS-1 C 60 E 82

L Deschutes MS-9 D 78 D 65

Wapinitia Cr-1 D 73 D 71

L Deschutes MS-3 C 67 D 79

Eagle Cr D 81 D 67

Mud Springs Cr-3 D 87 D 62

L Deschutes MS-20 D 74 D 77

L Deschutes MS-1 D 78 D 79

Skookum Cr D 76 E 85

Stag Canyon D 84 D 77

Bakeoven Cr-5 D 78 E 84

Big Log Cr-1 D 71 E 92

Finnegan Canyon D 77 E 86

Ferry Canyon E 95 D 73

Oak Canyon E 93 D 75

Hauser Canyon D 84 E 89

Buck Hollow Cr-5 D 86 E 89

Macks Canyon E 92 E 83

Booten Cr D 88 E 88

Macken Canyon D 91 E 86

Tub Springs Canyon D 83 E 97

Robin Cr D 89 E 94

Sagebrush Cr E 94 E 92

Trail Hollow Cr E 95 E 91

Trout Cr-16 D 90 E 99

Jones Canyon E 97 E 95

Fall Canyon E 97 E 96

Ochoco Gulch Cr E 97 E 98

Antelope Cr-3 E 97 E 100

Hay Cr-2 E 97 E 100

L Deschutes MS-10 E 97 E 100

Mud Springs Cr-2 E 97 E 100

Mud Springs Cr-5 E 97 E 100

White R MS-1 E 97 E 100

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-5% 0% 5% -5% 0% 5% -5% 0% 5%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-68 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

L Deschutes MS-1

L Deschutes MS-2

Fall Canyon

L Deschutes MS-3

L Deschutes MS-4

Macks Canyon

L Deschutes MS-5

Ferry Canyon

L Deschutes MS-6

Jones Canyon

L Deschutes MS-7

Oak Canyon

L Deschutes MS-8

Buck Hollow Cr-1

Finnegan Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-2

Hauser Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-3

Macken Canyon

Buck Hollow Cr-4

Thorn Hollow

Buck Hollow Cr-5

L Deschutes MS-9

L Deschutes MS-10

L Deschutes MS-11

White R MS-1

L Deschutes MS-12

Bakeoven Cr-1

Trail Hollow Cr

Bakeoven Cr-2

Booten Cr

Bakeoven Cr-3

Robin Cr

Bakeoven Cr-4

Deep Cr-1 (Bakeoven)

Cottonwood Cr-1

Ochoco Gulch Cr

Cottonwood Cr-2

Deep Cr-2 (Bakeoven)

Maupin Trail Canyon

Deep Cr-3 (Bakeoven)

Bakeoven Cr-5

L Deschutes MS-13

Stag Canyon

L Deschutes MS-14

Wapinitia Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-15

Nena Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-16

Eagle Cr

L Deschutes MS-17

Skookum Cr

L Deschutes MS-18

Warm Springs MS-1

L Deschutes MS-19

Trout Cr-1

Geographic area priority

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Continued next page
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-69 

Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead - continued

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Geographic area priority Attribute class priority for restoration

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Tenmile Cr

Trout Cr-2

Mud Springs Cr-1

Mud Springs Cr-2

Mud Springs Cr-3

Sagebrush Cr

Mud Springs Cr-4

Mud Springs Cr-5

Mud Springs Cr-6

Trout Cr-3

Hay Cr-1

Hay Cr-2

Hay Cr-3

Trout Cr-4

Antelope Cr-1

Ward Cr-1

Antelope Cr-2

Antelope Cr-3

Antelope Cr-4

Trout Cr-5

Tub Springs Canyon

Trout Cr-6

Little Trout Cr

Trout Cr-7

Big Whetstone Cr

Trout Cr-8

Clover Cr

Trout Cr-9

Beaver Cr (Trout)

Trout Cr-10

Amity Cr

Trout Cr-11

Board Hollow Cr

Trout Cr-12

Foley Cr-1

Big Log Cr-1

Dutchman Cr

Big Log Cr-2

Foley Cr-2

Trout Cr-13

Cartwright Cr

Trout Cr-14

Opal Cr-1

Auger Cr

Opal Cr-2

Trout Cr-15

Potlid Cr

Trout Cr-16

L Deschutes MS-20

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-70 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Beaver Cr-1 (WS) A2B3

Shitike Cr-3 A1B6

Boulder Cr (WS) A3B5

Warm Springs MS-7 B6B4

Shitike Cr-2 B5B7

L Deschutes MS-20 C 16 A 1

Warm Springs MS-9 B 8 B 10

Shitike Cr-1 B 7 B 13

Warm Springs MS-3 D 18 B 7

Badger Cr (WS) C 15 B 12

Beaver Cr-2 (WS) B 4 C 23

Mill Cr-2 (WS) C 12 C 16

Beaver Cr-3 (WS) B 8 C 21

Wapinitia Cr-1 D 27 A 2

L Deschutes MS-21 D 23 B 9

Warm Springs MS-1 D 19 B 14

Warm Springs MS-5 C 14 C 22

Warm Springs MS-8 B 11 C 26

L Deschutes MS-17 D 20 C 18

Beaver Cr-4 (WS) B 10 D 30

Beaver Cr-5 (WS) C 13 D 30

Warm Springs MS-6 C 16 C 27

Nena Cr-1 E 37 B 11

L Deschutes MS-18 D 29 C 20

L Deschutes MS-4 D 22 D 32

Warm Springs MS-4 D 32 C 23

L Deschutes MS-16 D 24 D 32

Eagle Cr E 41 C 16

L Deschutes MS-2 D 20 D 38

Wapinitia Cr-2 E 40 C 18

L Deschutes MS-6 D 26 D 34

L Deschutes MS-8 D 25 D 37

Mill Cr-1 (WS) D 35 D 29

Trout Cr-1 D 33 D 36

L Deschutes MS-11 D 28 D 42

Pelton Dam complex E 56 B 14

L Deschutes MS-12 D 30 D 41

L Deschutes MS-19 D 36 D 35

L Deschutes MS-15 D 34 D 38

Skookum Cr E 44 C 28

Bunchgrass Cr D 30 D 43

L Deschutes MS-14 E 38 D 40

Warm Springs MS-2 E 56 C 25

L Deschutes MS-5 E 39 E 48

L Deschutes MS-1 E 43 E 45

L Deschutes MS-3 E 42 E 46

Stag Canyon E 44 E 47

L Deschutes MS-13 E 49 D 43

L Deschutes MS-7 E 44 E 50

Buck Hollow Cr-1 E 44 E 54

Trout Cr-2 E 52 E 48

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20%

Continued next page 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-71 

Category/rank Category/rank Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Geographic Area

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead - continued

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

L Deschutes MS-9 E 50 E 52

Bakeoven Cr-1 E 48 E 56

Oak Canyon E 53 E 52

White R MS-1 E 54 E 51

Paquet Gulch-1 E 51 E 57

Jones Canyon E 55 E 55

Abbot Cr E 56 E 58

Candle Cr E 56 E 58

Canyon Cr-1 (Met) E 56 E 58

Crooked MS-1 E 56 E 58

Ferry Canyon E 56 E 58

First Cr E 56 E 58

Fly Cr-1 E 56 E 58

Indian Ford Cr E 56 E 58

Jack Cr-1 E 56 E 58

Jack Cr-2 E 56 E 58

Jefferson Cr E 56 E 58

L Deschutes MS-10 E 56 E 58

Lake Cr MF-1 E 56 E 58

Lake Cr MF-2 E 56 E 58

Lake Cr SF E 56 E 58

Lake Cr-1 E 56 E 58

M Deschutes MS-10 E 56 E 58

M Deschutes MS-4 E 56 E 58

M Deschutes MS-5 E 56 E 58

M Deschutes MS-6 E 56 E 58

M Deschutes MS-7 E 56 E 58

M Deschutes MS-8 E 56 E 58

M Deschutes MS-9 E 56 E 58

Macks Canyon E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-1 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-10 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-11 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-12 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-13 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-14 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-2 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-3 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-4 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-5 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-6 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-7 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-8 E 56 E 58

Metolius MS-9 E 56 E 58

Snow Cr (Squaw) E 56 E 58

Spring Cr-1 E 56 E 58

Spring Cr-1 (Met) E 56 E 58

Squaw Cr-1 E 56 E 58

Squaw Cr-2 E 56 E 58

Squaw Cr-3 E 56 E 58

Squaw Cr-4 E 56 E 58

Squaw Cr-5 E 56 E 58

Squaw Cr-6 E 56 E 58

Squaw Cr-7 E 56 E 58

Squaw Cr-8 E 56 E 58

Street Cr-1 E 56 E 58

Street Cr-2 E 56 E 58

Whitewater R E 56 E 58

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-72 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

L Deschutes MS-1

L Deschutes MS-2

L Deschutes MS-3

L Deschutes MS-4

Macks Canyon

L Deschutes MS-5

Ferry Canyon

L Deschutes MS-6

Jones Canyon

L Deschutes MS-7

Oak Canyon

L Deschutes MS-8

Buck Hollow Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-9

L Deschutes MS-10

L Deschutes MS-11

White R MS-1

L Deschutes MS-12

Bakeoven Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-13

Stag Canyon

L Deschutes MS-14

Wapinitia Cr-1

Paquet Gulch-1

Wapinitia Cr-2

L Deschutes MS-15

Nena Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-16

Eagle Cr

L Deschutes MS-17

Skookum Cr

L Deschutes MS-18

Warm Springs MS-1

Warm Springs MS-2

Warm Springs MS-3

Beaver Cr-1 (WS)

Beaver Cr-2 (WS)

Beaver Cr-3 (WS)

Beaver Cr-4 (WS)

Beaver Cr-5 (WS)

Warm Springs MS-4

Mill Cr-1 (WS)

Boulder Cr (WS)

Mill Cr-2 (WS)

Warm Springs MS-5

Badger Cr (WS)

Warm Springs MS-6

Warm Springs MS-7

Warm Springs MS-8

Bunchgrass Cr

Warm Springs MS-9

L Deschutes MS-19

Trout Cr-1

Trout Cr-2

L Deschutes MS-20

Shitike Cr-1

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Continued next page
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-73 

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead - continued

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Geographic area priority

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation

Shitike Cr-2

Shitike Cr-3

L Deschutes MS-21

Pelton Dam complex

M Deschutes MS-4

Metolius MS-1

Fly Cr-1

Metolius MS-2

Spring Cr-1

Metolius MS-3

Street Cr-1

Street Cr-2

Metolius MS-4

Metolius MS-5

Whitewater R

Metolius MS-6

Jefferson Cr

Metolius MS-7

Candle Cr

Metolius MS-8

Abbot Cr

Metolius MS-9

Canyon Cr-1 (Met)

Metolius MS-10

Jack Cr-1

Jack Cr-2

Metolius MS-11

First Cr

Metolius MS-12

Spring Cr-1 (Met)

Metolius MS-13

Lake Cr MF-1

Lake Cr SF

Lake Cr MF-2

Lake Cr-1

Metolius MS-14

M Deschutes MS-5

Crooked MS-1

M Deschutes MS-6

M Deschutes MS-7

Squaw Cr-1

Squaw Cr-2

Indian Ford Cr

Squaw Cr-3

Squaw Cr-4

Squaw Cr-5

Squaw Cr-6

Squaw Cr-7

Snow Cr (Squaw)

Squaw Cr-8

M Deschutes MS-8

M Deschutes MS-9

M Deschutes MS-10

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-74 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Pelton Dam complex B1A8

Warm Springs MS-7 E 15 A 1

Shitike Cr-1 E 15 A 2

Beaver Cr-1 (WS) E 15 A 3

L Deschutes MS-20 E 15 A 4

Boulder Cr (WS) E 15 A 5

Warm Springs MS-3 E 15 A 6

Warm Springs MS-9 E 15 A 7

Wapinitia Cr-1 E 2 C 21

Shitike Cr-2 E 15 A 9

L Deschutes MS-21 E 15 A 10

Shitike Cr-3 E 15 A 11

Beaver Cr-3 (WS) E 15 B 12

Warm Springs MS-1 E 15 B 12

Nena Cr-1 E 4 E 24

L Deschutes MS-17 E 15 B 14

L Deschutes MS-18 E 15 B 14

Mill Cr-2 (WS) E 15 B 14

Wapinitia Cr-2 E 5 E 25

Badger Cr (WS) E 9 C 23

Eagle Cr E 6 E 26

Warm Springs MS-8 E 15 B 17

Warm Springs MS-5 E 15 B 18

Beaver Cr-2 (WS) E 15 B 19

Warm Springs MS-6 E 15 C 20

Warm Springs MS-4 E 15 C 21

Skookum Cr E 7 E 32

Buck Hollow Cr-1 E 9 E 33

Mill Cr-1 (WS) E 15 E 27

L Deschutes MS-19 E 15 E 28

Trout Cr-1 E 15 E 29

Beaver Cr-4 (WS) E 11 E 34

Beaver Cr-5 (WS) E 2 E 43

L Deschutes MS-4 E 15 E 30

Bunchgrass Cr E 15 E 31

L Deschutes MS-6 E 15 E 34

Bakeoven Cr-1 E 11 E 39

White R MS-1 E 7 E 43

Trout Cr-2 E 15 E 36

L Deschutes MS-3 E 15 E 37

L Deschutes MS-8 E 15 E 38

L Deschutes MS-5 E 15 E 40

Paquet Gulch-1 E 13 E 42

L Deschutes MS-2 E 13 E 43

L Deschutes MS-7 E 15 E 41

Abbot Cr E 15 E 43

Candle Cr E 15 E 43

Canyon Cr-1 (Met) E 15 E 43

Crooked MS-1 E 15 E 43

Ferry Canyon E 15 E 43

First Cr E 15 E 43

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20%

Continued next page 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-75 

Category/rank Category/rank Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Geographic Area

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead - continued

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

Fly Cr-1 E 15 E 43

Indian Ford Cr E 15 E 43

Jack Cr-1 E 15 E 43

Jack Cr-2 E 15 E 43

Jefferson Cr E 15 E 43

Jones Canyon E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-1 E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-10 E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-11 E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-12 E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-13 E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-14 E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-15 E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-16 E 15 E 43

L Deschutes MS-9 E 15 E 43

Lake Cr MF-1 E 15 E 43

Lake Cr MF-2 E 15 E 43

Lake Cr SF E 15 E 43

Lake Cr-1 E 15 E 43

M Deschutes MS-10 E 15 E 43

M Deschutes MS-4 E 15 E 43

M Deschutes MS-5 E 15 E 43

M Deschutes MS-6 E 15 E 43

M Deschutes MS-7 E 15 E 43

M Deschutes MS-8 E 15 E 43

M Deschutes MS-9 E 15 E 43

Macks Canyon E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-1 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-10 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-11 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-12 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-13 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-14 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-2 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-3 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-4 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-5 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-6 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-7 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-8 E 15 E 43

Metolius MS-9 E 15 E 43

Oak Canyon E 15 E 43

Snow Cr (Squaw) E 15 E 43

Spring Cr-1 E 15 E 43

Spring Cr-1 (Met) E 15 E 43

Squaw Cr-1 E 15 E 43

Squaw Cr-2 E 15 E 43

Squaw Cr-3 E 15 E 43

Squaw Cr-4 E 15 E 43

Squaw Cr-5 E 15 E 43

Squaw Cr-6 E 15 E 43

Squaw Cr-7 E 15 E 43

Squaw Cr-8 E 15 E 43

Stag Canyon E 15 E 43

Street Cr-1 E 15 E 43

Street Cr-2 E 15 E 43

Warm Springs MS-2 E 15 E 43

Whitewater R E 15 E 43

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-76 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

L Deschutes MS-1

L Deschutes MS-2

L Deschutes MS-3

L Deschutes MS-4

Macks Canyon

L Deschutes MS-5

Ferry Canyon

L Deschutes MS-6

Jones Canyon

L Deschutes MS-7

Oak Canyon

L Deschutes MS-8

Buck Hollow Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-9

L Deschutes MS-10

L Deschutes MS-11

White R MS-1

L Deschutes MS-12

Bakeoven Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-13

Stag Canyon

L Deschutes MS-14

Wapinitia Cr-1

Paquet Gulch-1

Wapinitia Cr-2

L Deschutes MS-15

Nena Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-16

Eagle Cr

L Deschutes MS-17

Skookum Cr

L Deschutes MS-18

Warm Springs MS-1

Warm Springs MS-2

Warm Springs MS-3

Beaver Cr-1 (WS)

Beaver Cr-2 (WS)

Beaver Cr-3 (WS)

Beaver Cr-4 (WS)

Beaver Cr-5 (WS)

Warm Springs MS-4

Mill Cr-1 (WS)

Boulder Cr (WS)

Mill Cr-2 (WS)

Warm Springs MS-5

Badger Cr (WS)

Warm Springs MS-6

Warm Springs MS-7

Warm Springs MS-8

Bunchgrass Cr

Warm Springs MS-9

L Deschutes MS-19

Trout Cr-1

Trout Cr-2

L Deschutes MS-20

Shitike Cr-1

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Continued next page 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-77 

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead - continued

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature

Shitike Cr-2

Shitike Cr-3

L Deschutes MS-21

Pelton Dam complex

M Deschutes MS-4

Metolius MS-1

Fly Cr-1

Metolius MS-2

Spring Cr-1

Metolius MS-3

Street Cr-1

Street Cr-2

Metolius MS-4

Metolius MS-5

Whitewater R

Metolius MS-6

Jefferson Cr

Metolius MS-7

Candle Cr

Metolius MS-8

Abbot Cr

Metolius MS-9

Canyon Cr-1 (Met)

Metolius MS-10

Jack Cr-1

Jack Cr-2

Metolius MS-11

First Cr

Metolius MS-12

Spring Cr-1 (Met)

Metolius MS-13

Lake Cr MF-1

Lake Cr SF

Lake Cr MF-2

Lake Cr-1

Metolius MS-14

M Deschutes MS-5

Crooked MS-1

M Deschutes MS-6

M Deschutes MS-7

Squaw Cr-1

Squaw Cr-2

Indian Ford Cr

Squaw Cr-3

Squaw Cr-4

Squaw Cr-5

Squaw Cr-6

Squaw Cr-7

Snow Cr (Squaw)

Squaw Cr-8

M Deschutes MS-8

M Deschutes MS-9

M Deschutes MS-10

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-78 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Beaver Cr-1 (WS) A4B3

Shitike Cr-3 A1B6

Boulder Cr (WS) A2B6

Shitike Cr-2 B6B6

Squaw Cr-2 A 3 C 17

Squaw Cr-7 B 8 C 12

Warm Springs MS-7 A 5 C 15

L Deschutes MS-20 B 12 C 10

Warm Springs MS-9 B 10 C 16

Warm Springs MS-3 C 22 B 5

Beaver Cr-3 (WS) B 11 D 19

L Deschutes MS-21 C 29 C 9

Beaver Cr-2 (WS) B 8 D 31

Mill Cr-2 (WS) B 14 D 25

M Deschutes MS-8 C 27 C 14

L Deschutes MS-17 C 24 D 20

Indian Ford Cr B 20 D 26

Wapinitia Cr-1 C 45 B 2

Beaver Cr-5 (WS) C 24 D 24

L Deschutes MS-2 C 32 C 17

Warm Springs MS-5 B 18 D 33

Beaver Cr-4 (WS) B 18 D 35

Warm Springs MS-1 C 27 D 28

L Deschutes MS-4 C 33 D 23

Lake Cr MF-2 C 29 D 29

Nena Cr-1 D 55 B 4

Shitike Cr-1 B 6 D 54

Warm Springs MS-4 C 40 D 20

Badger Cr (WS) B 15 D 47

L Deschutes MS-18 C 36 D 26

Warm Springs MS-8 B 13 D 51

Squaw Cr-1 C 31 D 38

L Deschutes MS-16 C 38 D 33

Lake Cr SF C 33 D 39

Squaw Cr-3 C 22 D 52

Warm Springs MS-6 C 26 D 48

Eagle Cr D 62 C 13

Snow Cr (Squaw) B 16 D 60

L Deschutes MS-12 D 48 D 29

L Deschutes MS-8 C 42 D 36

L Deschutes MS-6 C 37 D 43

Mill Cr-1 (WS) C 44 D 37

Squaw Cr-8 B 17 D 65

Lake Cr-1 C 40 D 44

M Deschutes MS-10 C 43 D 44

Squaw Cr-5 C 35 D 52

Abbot Cr B 21 D 67

L Deschutes MS-15 D 50 D 40

M Deschutes MS-7 D 51 D 41

Wapinitia Cr-2 D 60 D 32

Pelton Dam complex E 97 A 1

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10%

Continued next page 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-79 

Category/rank Category/rank Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Geographic Area

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead - continued

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

L Deschutes MS-19 D 49 D 50

Skookum Cr D 79 D 20

Metolius MS-6 D 47 D 56

L Deschutes MS-14 D 64 D 41

L Deschutes MS-11 D 46 D 61

Warm Springs MS-2 E 97 C 10

Metolius MS-9 D 54 D 58

Lake Cr MF-1 C 39 D 75

L Deschutes MS-1 D 65 D 54

L Deschutes MS-13 D 70 D 49

Trout Cr-1 D 58 D 62

L Deschutes MS-7 D 53 D 68

Metolius MS-1 D 58 D 64

Metolius MS-8 D 63 D 59

Bunchgrass Cr D 52 D 71

L Deschutes MS-5 D 60 D 65

L Deschutes MS-3 D 56 D 70

L Deschutes MS-9 D 75 D 57

M Deschutes MS-6 D 56 D 77

M Deschutes MS-4 E 80 D 62

Crooked MS-1 E 97 D 46

Buck Hollow Cr-1 D 67 E 83

Metolius MS-5 D 68 E 82

Spring Cr-1 (Met) D 74 D 77

M Deschutes MS-5 D 77 D 75

Metolius MS-14 D 72 E 80

Jefferson Cr D 65 E 89

Stag Canyon E 85 D 69

Metolius MS-12 D 71 E 85

Bakeoven Cr-1 D 68 E 89

Metolius MS-4 E 84 D 73

Candle Cr D 73 E 85

Oak Canyon E 86 D 72

Metolius MS-2 E 83 D 77

Metolius MS-11 D 77 E 85

Metolius MS-3 E 91 D 73

Trout Cr-2 E 81 E 85

First Cr D 76 E 96

Metolius MS-10 E 81 E 93

White R MS-1 E 88 E 89

M Deschutes MS-9 E 97 E 81

Spring Cr-1 E 97 E 84

Metolius MS-7 E 87 E 95

Jones Canyon E 94 E 92

Metolius MS-13 E 90 E 97

Paquet Gulch-1 E 92 E 98

Canyon Cr-1 (Met) E 97 E 94

Whitewater R E 88 E 103

Jack Cr-1 E 94 E 99

Jack Cr-2 E 93 E 100

Street Cr-1 E 96 E 101

Street Cr-2 E 97 E 102

Ferry Canyon E 97 E 103

Fly Cr-1 E 97 E 103

L Deschutes MS-10 E 97 E 103

Macks Canyon E 97 E 103

Squaw Cr-4 E 97 E 103

Squaw Cr-6 E 97 E 103

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

-10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-80 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

L Deschutes MS-1

L Deschutes MS-2

L Deschutes MS-3

L Deschutes MS-4

Macks Canyon

L Deschutes MS-5

Ferry Canyon

L Deschutes MS-6

Jones Canyon

L Deschutes MS-7

Oak Canyon

L Deschutes MS-8

Buck Hollow Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-9

L Deschutes MS-10

L Deschutes MS-11

White R MS-1

L Deschutes MS-12

Bakeoven Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-13

Stag Canyon

L Deschutes MS-14

Wapinitia Cr-1

Paquet Gulch-1

Wapinitia Cr-2

L Deschutes MS-15

Nena Cr-1

L Deschutes MS-16

Eagle Cr

L Deschutes MS-17

Skookum Cr

L Deschutes MS-18

Warm Springs MS-1

Warm Springs MS-2

Warm Springs MS-3

Beaver Cr-1 (WS)

Beaver Cr-2 (WS)

Beaver Cr-3 (WS)

Beaver Cr-4 (WS)

Beaver Cr-5 (WS)

Warm Springs MS-4

Mill Cr-1 (WS)

Boulder Cr (WS)

Mill Cr-2 (WS)

Warm Springs MS-5

Badger Cr (WS)

Warm Springs MS-6

Warm Springs MS-7

Warm Springs MS-8

Bunchgrass Cr

Warm Springs MS-9

L Deschutes MS-19

Trout Cr-1

Trout Cr-2

L Deschutes MS-20

Shitike Cr-1

Geographic area priority

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Continued next page
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-81 

Deschutes Westside Summer Steelhead - continued

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Geographic area priority Attribute class priority for restoration

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals

Shitike Cr-2

Shitike Cr-3

L Deschutes MS-21

Pelton Dam complex

M Deschutes MS-4

Metolius MS-1

Fly Cr-1

Metolius MS-2

Spring Cr-1

Metolius MS-3

Street Cr-1

Street Cr-2

Metolius MS-4

Metolius MS-5

Whitewater R

Metolius MS-6

Jefferson Cr

Metolius MS-7

Candle Cr

Metolius MS-8

Abbot Cr

Metolius MS-9

Canyon Cr-1 (Met)

Metolius MS-10

Jack Cr-1

Jack Cr-2

Metolius MS-11

First Cr

Metolius MS-12

Spring Cr-1 (Met)

Metolius MS-13

Lake Cr MF-1

Lake Cr SF

Lake Cr MF-2

Lake Cr-1

Metolius MS-14

M Deschutes MS-5

Crooked MS-1

M Deschutes MS-6

M Deschutes MS-7

Squaw Cr-1

Squaw Cr-2

Indian Ford Cr

Squaw Cr-3

Squaw Cr-4

Squaw Cr-5

Squaw Cr-6

Squaw Cr-7

Snow Cr (Squaw)

Squaw Cr-8

M Deschutes MS-8

M Deschutes MS-9

M Deschutes MS-10

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-82 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Bridge Creek B6A1

Lower JDR Muddy Creek B3A5

Upper Middle JDR A2A6

Mountain Creek B5A4

Lower JDR Kahler Creek C8A2

Rock Creek A 1 B 12

Lower JDR Scott Canyon C9A6

JDR Johnson Creek C9B8

Thirtymile Creek D 14 A 3

Butte Creek C9B9

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry B 4 D 18

Lower JDR Service Creek D 12 B 10

Lower JDR Clarno C 7 D 17

Upper Rock Creek D 15 B 10

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon D 13 C 15

Lower Rock Cr E 16 C 14

Pine Hollow E 17 C 13

Grass Valley Canyon E 19 D 16

Lower NF JDR E 18 E 19

Fields Creek E 20 E 20

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Lower John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-60% 0% 60% -60% 0% 60% -60% 0% 60%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-83 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Lower John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

Bridge Creek

Butte Creek

Fields Creek

Grass Valley Canyon

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower NF JDR

Lower Rock Cr

Mountain Creek

Pine Hollow

Rock Creek

Thirtymile Creek

Upper Middle JDR

Upper Rock Creek

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-84 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Upper Rock Creek D2B7

Bridge Creek E9A1

Butte Creek E9A2

Thirtymile Creek E9A2

Lower JDR Scott Canyon D 1 C 12

Mountain Creek E9A4

Lower Rock Cr E9B5

Lower JDR Kahler Creek E9B6

Rock Creek E9B8

JDR Johnson Creek E9B9

Lower JDR Muddy Creek E 5 C 13

Upper Middle JDR E9B9

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon E 4 C 15

Lower JDR Service Creek D 3 D 16

Pine Hollow E 9 C 11

Grass Valley Canyon E 9 C 14

Lower JDR Clarno E 7 D 17

Lower NF JDR E 6 E 19

Fields Creek E 7 E 20

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry E 9 D 18

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Lower John Day Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

-20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-85 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Lower John Day Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Bridge Creek

Butte Creek

Fields Creek

Grass Valley Canyon

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower NF JDR

Lower Rock Cr

Mountain Creek

Pine Hollow

Rock Creek

Thirtymile Creek

Upper Middle JDR

Upper Rock Creek

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-86 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Bridge Creek A1A2

Upper Rock Creek A3A2

Lower JDR Kahler Creek C9A1

Upper Middle JDR A4B6

Mountain Creek A4B9

Rock Creek A 2 B 11

Lower JDR Muddy Creek C 11 B 5

Lower JDR Scott Canyon C 13 B 4

Thirtymile Creek B 7 B 12

Butte Creek B 6 C 14

JDR Johnson Creek C 14 B 7

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon C 11 B 10

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry B 8 D 17

Lower JDR Service Creek D 17 B 8

Lower JDR Clarno C 14 C 14

Lower Rock Cr C 10 D 18

Pine Hollow D 16 C 13

Grass Valley Canyon D 18 D 16

Lower NF JDR E 19 E 19

Fields Creek E 20 E 20

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Lower John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

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%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-87 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Lower John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

Bridge Creek

Butte Creek

Fields Creek

Grass Valley Canyon

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower NF JDR

Lower Rock Cr

Mountain Creek

Pine Hollow

Rock Creek

Thirtymile Creek

Upper Middle JDR

Upper Rock Creek

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

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-88 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

NF JDR Big Creek A1A4

Upper NF JDR A3A3

NF JDR Potamus Creek B5A2

Desolation Creek A2C8

Upper Camas Creek B4C7

Granite Creek B7B5

Wall Creek B8B6

Cottonwood Creek D 16 A 1

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry B 6 D 11

Lower NF JDR C 10 C 8

Lower Camas Creek C 13 C 8

Lower JDR Kahler Creek C 9 D 14

Lower JDR Scott Canyon C 13 D 13

Lower JDR Service Creek C 10 D 16

Lower JDR Clarno C 13 D 15

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon D 17 D 12

Lower JDR Muddy Creek C 12 D 17

JDR Johnson Creek E 18 E 18

Lower MF JDR E 18 E 18

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

NF John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

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%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-89 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

NF John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

Cottonwood Creek

Desolation Creek

Granite Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower Camas Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower MF JDR

Lower NF JDR

NF JDR Big Creek

NF JDR Potamus Creek

Upper Camas Creek

Upper NF JDR

Wall Creek

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

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-90 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Upper NF JDR E4A1

Cottonwood Creek E4A2

Granite Creek E4B3

NF JDR Big Creek E4B3

Upper Camas Creek E4B3

Wall Creek E4B6

Desolation Creek E4B7

Lower Camas Creek E4B7

Lower NF JDR E 1 C 10

NF JDR Potamus Creek E4B9

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry E 4 C 10

Lower JDR Scott Canyon E 4 D 12

Lower JDR Kahler Creek E 4 D 13

Lower JDR Service Creek E 4 D 14

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon E 4 D 15

Lower MF JDR E 1 E 18

JDR Johnson Creek E 3 E 17

Lower JDR Clarno E 4 D 16

Lower JDR Muddy Creek E 4 E 18

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

NF John Day Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

-5% 0% 5% -5% 0% 5% -5% 0% 5%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-91 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

NF John Day Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Cottonwood Creek

Desolation Creek

Granite Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower Camas Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower MF JDR

Lower NF JDR

NF JDR Big Creek

NF JDR Potamus Creek

Upper Camas Creek

Upper NF JDR

Wall Creek

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-92 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

NF JDR Potamus Creek A2A2

NF JDR Big Creek A1A4

Granite Creek A4B6

Upper NF JDR A6A4

Cottonwood Creek B 10 A 1

Wall Creek B8A3

Desolation Creek A3B9

Upper Camas Creek A5B8

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry B 7 D 11

Lower NF JDR C 13 B 6

Lower Camas Creek B 10 C 10

Lower JDR Kahler Creek B 9 D 12

Lower JDR Service Creek C 12 D 15

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon C 17 D 12

Lower JDR Clarno C 16 D 14

Lower JDR Scott Canyon C 15 D 15

Lower JDR Muddy Creek C 14 E 17

Lower MF JDR D 18 E 18

JDR Johnson Creek D 18 E 19

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

NF John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-93 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

NF John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

Cottonwood Creek

Desolation Creek

Granite Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower Camas Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower MF JDR

Lower NF JDR

NF JDR Big Creek

NF JDR Potamus Creek

Upper Camas Creek

Upper NF JDR

Wall Creek

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-94 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Big Creek B2A1

Camp Creek A1A2

Long Creek C3B3

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry C3C6

Upper MF JDR C5B5

Lower MF JDR D7B4

Lower JDR Kahler Creek C 5 D 12

Lower JDR Clarno D 10 D 9

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon D 12 C 7

Lower JDR Scott Canyon D 11 C 8

Lower JDR Service Creek D 8 D 13

Lower NF JDR D 12 D 9

Lower JDR Muddy Creek D 9 D 14

NF JDR Potamus Creek D 14 D 11

Cottonwood Creek E 15 E 15

Wall Creek E 15 E 15

JDR Johnson Creek E 15 E 17

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

MF John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-55% 0% 55% -55% 0% 55% -55% 0% 55%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-95 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

MF John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

Big Creek

Camp Creek

Cottonwood Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Long Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower MF JDR

Lower NF JDR

NF JDR Potamus Creek

Upper MF JDR

Wall Creek

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

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-96 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Camp Creek E6A1

Big Creek E6B2

Long Creek E6B3

Upper MF JDR E6C4

Lower MF JDR E6C5

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry E6D6

Lower NF JDR E 2 E 10

Lower JDR Kahler Creek E6D7

Lower JDR Scott Canyon E6D8

NF JDR Potamus Creek E 1 E 13

Lower JDR Service Creek E6E9

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon E 6 E 11

Cottonwood Creek E 3 E 15

Lower JDR Clarno E 6 E 12

Lower JDR Muddy Creek E 6 E 14

Wall Creek E 4 E 16

JDR Johnson Creek E 4 E 17

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

MF John Day Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

-25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-97 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

MF John Day Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Big Creek

Camp Creek

Cottonwood Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Long Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower MF JDR

Lower NF JDR

NF JDR Potamus Creek

Upper MF JDR

Wall Creek

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-98 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Big Creek B2A1

Camp Creek A1A2

Long Creek B3B4

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry C5B5

Lower MF JDR C7B3

Upper MF JDR B4B6

Lower JDR Kahler Creek C 6 D 12

Lower JDR Clarno D 11 C 8

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon D 13 B 6

Lower JDR Scott Canyon D 10 C 11

Lower JDR Service Creek D 8 D 13

Lower NF JDR D 12 C 9

Lower JDR Muddy Creek D 9 D 14

NF JDR Potamus Creek D 13 C 10

Cottonwood Creek E 15 E 15

Wall Creek E 16 E 16

JDR Johnson Creek E 16 E 17

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

MF John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-99 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

MF John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

Big Creek

Camp Creek

Cottonwood Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Long Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower MF JDR

Lower NF JDR

NF JDR Potamus Creek

Upper MF JDR

Wall Creek

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-100 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Lower SF JDR A1A1

Murderers Creek B3B2

Middle SF JDR B3C3

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry B2D6

Lower JDR Kahler Creek B 3 D 10

JDR Johnson Creek C 10 D 4

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon C9D7

Lower JDR Clarno C8D9

Lower JDR Service Creek C 6 D 11

Upper Middle JDR D 12 D 5

Lower JDR Scott Canyon C 10 D 8

Lower JDR Muddy Creek C 7 D 12

Fields Creek E 13 D 12

Rock Creek E 14 E 14

Lower NF JDR E 15 E 14

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

SF John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-40% 0% 40% -40% 0% 40% -40% 0% 40%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-101 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

SF John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

Fields Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower NF JDR

Lower SF JDR

Middle SF JDR

Murderers Creek

Rock Creek

Upper Middle JDR

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

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-102 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Lower SF JDR E3A1

Murderers Creek E3A2

Middle SF JDR E3B3

Upper Middle JDR E3C4

JDR Johnson Creek E3C5

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry E3D6

Lower JDR Kahler Creek E3D7

Lower JDR Scott Canyon E3D8

Fields Creek E3D9

Lower JDR Service Creek E 3 D 10

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon E 3 D 11

Lower NF JDR E 1 E 13

Lower JDR Clarno E 3 D 12

Rock Creek E 1 E 15

Lower JDR Muddy Creek E 3 E 14

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

SF John Day Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

-15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-103 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

SF John Day Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Fields Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower NF JDR

Lower SF JDR

Middle SF JDR

Murderers Creek

Rock Creek

Upper Middle JDR

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-104 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Lower SF JDR A1A1

Murderers Creek A2B2

Middle SF JDR B3B3

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry C4C5

JDR Johnson Creek C7C4

Lower JDR Kahler Creek C5C9

Lower JDR Scott Canyon C9C7

Lower JDR Service Creek C 6 D 11

Upper Middle JDR C 11 C 6

Lower JDR Muddy Creek C 7 D 12

Lower JDR Clarno C 10 C 10

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon C 12 C 8

Fields Creek D 13 E 13

Rock Creek E 14 E 14

Lower NF JDR E 15 E 15

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

SF John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-105 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years

SF John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

Fields Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower NF JDR

Lower SF JDR

Middle SF JDR

Murderers Creek

Rock Creek

Upper Middle JDR

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-106 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Strawberry Creek B3A2

Upper JDR A1B5

Fields Creek C6A1

Canyon Creek B2C6

Beech Creek C7B4

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry C4D7

Laycock Creek C9A3

Lower JDR Kahler Creek C 5 D 13

Lower JDR Clarno D 11 D 10

Lower JDR Scott Canyon D 12 D 9

Lower JDR Service Creek C 7 D 14

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon D 14 D 8

JDR Johnson Creek D 13 D 11

Lower JDR Muddy Creek D 10 D 15

Upper Middle JDR E 15 D 12

Lower SF JDR E 16 E 16

Rock Creek E 17 E 17

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Upper John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-40% 0% 40% -40% 0% 40% -40% 0% 40%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-107 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Upper John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

Beech Creek

Canyon Creek

Fields Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Laycock Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower SF JDR

Rock Creek

Strawberry Creek

Upper JDR

Upper Middle JDR

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

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-108 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Laycock Creek E4A1

Strawberry Creek E4B2

Beech Creek E4B3

Upper JDR E4B4

Fields Creek E4C5

Canyon Creek E4C6

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry E4D7

Upper Middle JDR E 1 D 10

JDR Johnson Creek E4D8

Lower JDR Kahler Creek E4D8

Lower JDR Scott Canyon E 4 D 10

Lower JDR Service Creek E 4 E 12

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon E 4 E 13

Lower SF JDR E 2 E 15

Lower JDR Clarno E 4 E 14

Rock Creek E 2 E 17

Lower JDR Muddy Creek E 4 E 16

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Upper John Day Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

-25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-109 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Upper John Day Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Beech Creek

Canyon Creek

Fields Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Laycock Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower SF JDR

Rock Creek

Strawberry Creek

Upper JDR

Upper Middle JDR

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-110 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

Strawberry Creek B2A2

Canyon Creek B3B4

Laycock Creek B4B3

Fields Creek C7A1

Upper JDR A1B7

Beech Creek B5B5

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry C6B5

Lower JDR Kahler Creek C 8 C 12

Lower JDR Service Creek C 9 C 11

Lower JDR Clarno C 12 C 9

Lower JDR Scott Canyon C 11 C 10

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon C 14 C 8

Lower JDR Muddy Creek C 10 C 14

JDR Johnson Creek C 13 C 13

Upper Middle JDR C 14 C 15

Lower SF JDR D 16 D 16

Rock Creek D 17 D 17

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Upper John Day Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-111 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Upper John Day Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

Beech Creek

Canyon Creek

Fields Creek

JDR Johnson Creek

Laycock Creek

Lower JDR Clarno

Lower JDR Ferry Canyon

Lower JDR Kahler Creek

Lower JDR McDonald Ferry

Lower JDR Muddy Creek

Lower JDR Scott Canyon

Lower JDR Service Creek

Lower SF JDR

Rock Creek

Strawberry Creek

Upper JDR

Upper Middle JDR

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-112 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

GA40 A1B4

GA28 C 10 A 2

GA33 B8B5

GA35 B 5 C 10

GA19 B 6 C 11

GA12 C 18 A 1

GA36 C 14 B 6

GA42 A 2 C 22

GA43 B 7 C 18

GA15 C 19 B 7

GA18 C 12 C 18

GA46 B 4 C 26

GA9 C 13 C 20

GA14 C 15 C 20

GA44 B 3 D 32

GA20 D 24 C 12

GA17 D 25 C 14

GA45 C 11 C 28

GA2 C 16 C 24

GA34 C 17 C 23

GA5 E 37 A 3

GA13 E 33 C 9

GA32 D 30 C 13

GA1 D 21 C 26

GA37 C 9 D 38

GA21 E 42 B 7

GA27 E 33 C 16

GA29 E 33 C 16

GA31 D 28 C 24

GA38 D 23 C 29

GA4 E 38 C 15

GA16 D 20 D 35

GA39 D 26 D 31

GA6 D 29 C 29

GA41 D 21 D 40

GA25 D 27 D 35

GA30 D 30 D 34

GA11 E 32 D 39

GA8 E 39 D 33

GA3 E 36 E 41

GA7 E 41 D 37

GA26 E 40 E 42

GA22 E 42 E 43

GA24 E 42 E 43

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Umatilla Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25% -25% 0% 25%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-113 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Umatilla Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

GA1

GA2

GA3

GA4

GA5

GA6

GA7

GA8

GA9

GA11

GA12

GA13

GA14

GA15

GA16

GA17

GA18

GA19

GA20

GA21

GA22

GA24

GA25

GA26

GA27

GA28

GA29

GA30

GA31

GA32

GA33

GA34

GA35

GA36

GA37

GA38

GA39

GA40

GA41

GA42

GA43

GA44

GA45

GA46

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

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-114 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

GA28 E 10 A 1

GA12 E 10 A 2

GA40 E 10 A 3

GA33 E 10 A 4

GA5 C 1 B 13

GA36 E 10 B 5

GA13 E 10 B 6

GA15 E 10 B 7

GA17 E 10 B 8

GA19 E 10 B 9

GA32 E 10 B 10

GA14 E 10 B 11

GA18 E 10 B 12

GA2 E 10 B 14

GA43 E 10 B 15

GA1 E 10 C 16

GA31 E 10 C 16

GA4 E 4 C 23

GA9 E 10 C 18

GA27 E 5 C 24

GA35 E 10 C 19

GA38 E 10 C 20

GA20 E 10 C 21

GA8 E 7 C 24

GA45 E 10 C 22

GA29 C 1 C 32

GA42 E 10 C 24

GA6 E 8 C 27

GA46 E 10 C 27

GA25 C 1 D 37

GA7 E 9 C 29

GA16 E 10 C 29

GA30 E 10 C 29

GA11 E 10 D 33

GA34 E 10 D 34

GA39 E 10 D 34

GA44 E 10 D 36

GA26 E 6 D 41

GA3 E 10 D 38

GA37 E 10 D 38

GA41 E 10 D 40

GA21 E 10 E 42

GA22 E 10 E 42

GA24 E 10 E 42

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Umatilla Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

-10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10% -10% 0% 10%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-115 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Umatilla Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

GA1

GA2

GA3

GA4

GA5

GA6

GA7

GA8

GA9

GA11

GA12

GA13

GA14

GA15

GA16

GA17

GA18

GA19

GA20

GA21

GA22

GA24

GA25

GA26

GA27

GA28

GA29

GA30

GA31

GA32

GA33

GA34

GA35

GA36

GA37

GA38

GA39

GA40

GA41

GA42

GA43

GA44

GA45

GA46

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor 

change (whether gain or loss) is shown 

for area (reaches may differ in gain or 

loss).

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-116 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

GA28 A2B6

GA12 A5B4

GA33 A3B9

GA9 A7B7

GA8 B 12 B 3

GA40 A 1 B 15

GA15 B 15 B 5

GA19 A 4 B 18

GA35 B 13 B 10

GA36 B 11 B 12

GA6 B 16 B 8

GA7 C 23 B 2

GA5 C 25 A 1

GA42 A 6 C 23

GA46 B 10 C 25

GA2 B 17 C 20

GA14 B 9 C 29

GA18 B 13 C 27

GA1 C 24 B 17

GA44 B 8 C 33

GA43 B 18 C 25

GA25 D 30 B 14

GA29 D 33 B 12

GA13 C 20 C 28

GA20 D 32 B 16

GA34 C 27 C 21

GA17 C 19 C 32

GA45 C 21 C 30

GA32 C 28 C 24

GA21 E 42 B 11

GA27 D 35 C 19

GA16 C 26 C 34

GA4 D 38 C 22

GA37 C 22 C 40

GA39 D 34 C 30

GA38 C 29 C 37

GA11 D 35 C 35

GA31 D 35 C 36

GA41 D 31 D 42

GA30 D 38 C 39

GA26 E 41 C 38

GA3 D 38 D 41

GA22 E 42 E 43

GA24 E 42 E 43

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Umatilla Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15% -15% 0% 15%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-117 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Umatilla Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

GA1

GA2

GA3

GA4

GA5

GA6

GA7

GA8

GA9

GA11

GA12

GA13

GA14

GA15

GA16

GA17

GA18

GA19

GA20

GA21

GA22

GA24

GA25

GA26

GA27

GA28

GA29

GA30

GA31

GA32

GA33

GA34

GA35

GA36

GA37

GA38

GA39

GA40

GA41

GA42

GA43

GA44

GA45

GA46

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater 

areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-118 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

SF Walla Walla, mouth to Elbow Creek B4A3

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to access limit A 1 B 11

NF Walla Walla, mouth to L. Meadows Ca D 11 B 4

Walla Walla, Little Walla Walla Diversion C6B9

Mill Cr, Blue Cr to Walla Walla water intak C 7 B 10

Walla Walla, E Little Walla Walla to Tuma C 8 B 11

Cottonwood Cr Drainage (including NF, S E 15 B 5

Pine Cr mainstem (plus Swartz) E 17 B 5

Lower Walla Walla (mouth to Touche) E 28 A 1

Mill Cr, Gose Street to Bennington Dam E 28 A 1

NF Walla Walla, L. Meadows to access lim C 9 C 20

Walla Walla, Touche to Dry (plus Mud Cr) E 21 B 8

Walla Walla, Tumalum Bridge to Nursery E 13 C 19

E Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Unnam E 24 B 11

Walla Walla, Mill to E L. Walla Walla (plus E 28 B 7

Mill Cr, mouth to start of Corps Project at E 20 C 16

Mill Cr, Walla Walla water intake to acces C 5 D 34

Walla Walla, Nursery Br to Little Walla Wa E 14 C 25

Garrison Cr Drainage (plus Bryant) E 25 C 16

Upper SF Walla Walla tribs (excluding Sk B 2 E 39

Skiphorton & Reser Creek Drainages B 3 E 39

Yellowhawk mainstem (mouth to source) E 28 C 14

Dry Cr [Pine] Drainage E 28 C 15

Lower Dry Cr (mouth to Sapolil) E 19 C 24

Dry Cr Tribs (Mud[Dixie], Mud[Dry], NF Dr E 16 C 28

Upper Dry Cr (Sapolil to forks) E 22 C 22

Lower Mill Cr Tribs (Doan & Cold) E 18 C 27

Lower SF Walla Walla Tribs (Flume Cany C 9 E 36

Walla Walla, Dry to Mill E 28 C 18

Upper Mill Tribs (NF, Low, Broken, Paradi D 12 E 37

Yellowhawk Tribs (Lassater, Russell, Res E 28 C 21

Mill Cr, Bennington Dam to Blue Cr (plusT E 23 C 28

W Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Wals E 28 C 23

Stone Cr Drainage E 28 C 26

Blue Cr Drainage (including L. Blue) E 28 D 30

Couse Creek Drainage E 28 D 30

Birch Creek Drainage E 27 D 33

Middle Mill Cr Tribs (Henry Canyon, Webb E 25 D 35

Lower Touche (mouth to Coppei) E 28 E 38

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Walla Walla Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures - current condition

Change in Abundance with Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Protection 

benefit

Restoration 

benefit

-50% 0% 50% -50% 0% 50% -50% 0% 50%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-119 

Baseline Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Walla Walla Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary - current condition

Attribute class priority for restoration

Lower Walla Walla (mouth to Touche)

Lower Touche (mouth to Coppei)

Walla Walla, Touche to Dry (plus Mud Cr)

Pine Cr mainstem (plus Swartz)

Dry Cr [Pine] Drainage

Lower Dry Cr (mouth to Sapolil)

Upper Dry Cr (Sapolil to forks)

Dry Cr Tribs (Mud[Dixie], Mud[Dry], NF Dry & SF D

Walla Walla, Dry to Mill

W Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Walsh)

Mill Cr, mouth to start of Corps Project at Gose St

Lower Mill Cr Tribs (Doan & Cold)

Mill Cr, Gose Street to Bennington Dam

Mill Cr, Bennington Dam to Blue Cr (plusTitus)

Blue Cr Drainage (including L. Blue)

Mill Cr, Blue Cr to Walla Walla water intake

Middle Mill Cr Tribs (Henry Canyon, Webb &Tiger)

Mill Cr, Walla Walla water intake to access limit

Upper Mill Tribs (NF, Low, Broken, Paradise)

Walla Walla, Mill to E L. Walla Walla (plus MacAvoy

Garrison Cr Drainage (plus Bryant)

Stone Cr Drainage

E Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Unnamed Sprin

Walla Walla, E Little Walla Walla to Tumalum Bridg

Yellowhawk mainstem (mouth to source)

Yellowhawk Tribs (Lassater, Russell, Reser & Caldw

Cottonwood Cr Drainage (including NF, SF & MF)

Birch Creek Drainage

Walla Walla, Tumalum Bridge to Nursery Bridge

Walla Walla, Nursery Br to Little Walla Walla Divers

Walla Walla, Little Walla Walla Diversion to forks

Couse Creek Drainage

NF Walla Walla, mouth to L. Meadows Canyon Cr (

NF Walla Walla, L. Meadows to access limit (plus B

SF Walla Walla, mouth to Elbow Creek

Lower SF Walla Walla Tribs (Flume Canyon, Elbow

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to access limit

Upper SF Walla Walla tribs (excluding Skiphorton &

Skiphorton & Reser Creek Drainages

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

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Predation
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-120 

Scenario Profile Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Loss Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain

Cottonwood Cr Drainage (including NF, S E 4 C 10

Pine Cr mainstem (plus Swartz) E 3 D 14

SF Walla Walla, mouth to Elbow Creek E 17 A 1

NF Walla Walla, mouth to L. Meadows Ca E 17 B 2

E Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Unnam E 10 C 10

Lower Walla Walla (mouth to Touche) E 17 B 3

Walla Walla, Little Walla Walla Diversion E 17 B 4

Walla Walla, Tumalum Bridge to Nursery E 17 B 5

Walla Walla, Nursery Br to Little Walla Wa E 17 C 6

Walla Walla, Touche to Dry (plus Mud Cr) E 17 C 7

Dry Cr [Pine] Drainage E 7 D 18

Walla Walla, E Little Walla Walla to Tuma E 17 C 8

Couse Creek Drainage C 1 E 25

NF Walla Walla, L. Meadows to access lim E 17 C 9

Mill Cr, mouth to start of Corps Project at E 6 D 21

Upper SF Walla Walla tribs (excluding Sk C 1 E 27

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to access limit E 17 D 12

W Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Wals E 13 D 16

Walla Walla, Mill to E L. Walla Walla (plus E 17 D 12

Mill Cr, Bennington Dam to Blue Cr (plusT E 9 D 21

Mill Cr, Blue Cr to Walla Walla water intak E 15 D 15

Skiphorton & Reser Creek Drainages E 4 E 27

Mill Cr, Gose Street to Bennington Dam E 7 E 27

Walla Walla, Dry to Mill E 17 D 17

Lower SF Walla Walla Tribs (Flume Cany E 17 D 19

Birch Creek Drainage E 11 E 26

Middle Mill Cr Tribs (Henry Canyon, Webb E 14 D 23

Upper Mill Tribs (NF, Low, Broken, Paradi E 17 D 20

Mill Cr, Walla Walla water intake to acces E 17 E 24

Yellowhawk mainstem (mouth to source) E 15 E 27

Blue Cr Drainage (including L. Blue) E 17 E 27

Dry Cr Tribs (Mud[Dixie], Mud[Dry], NF Dr E 17 E 27

Garrison Cr Drainage (plus Bryant) E 17 E 27

Lower Dry Cr (mouth to Sapolil) E 17 E 27

Lower Mill Cr Tribs (Doan & Cold) E 17 E 27

Lower Touche (mouth to Coppei) E 17 E 27

Stone Cr Drainage E 17 E 27

Upper Dry Cr (Sapolil to forks) E 17 E 27

Yellowhawk Tribs (Lassater, Russell, Res E 17 E 27

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Walla Walla Summer Steelhead

Change in Performance Due to Scenario's Effect within Geographic Area

Loss or Gain in Abundance Change in Productivity with Change in Diversity Index with Loss 

category

Gain 

category

-20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20% -20% 0% 20%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-121 

Scenario Profile Report – Change in Habitat Factors Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Walla Walla Summer Steelhead

Summary of Scenario Effects on Survival Factors and Overall Performance

Change in attribute impact on survival due to scenario

Lower Walla Walla (mouth to Touche)

Lower Touche (mouth to Coppei)

Walla Walla, Touche to Dry (plus Mud Cr)

Pine Cr mainstem (plus Swartz)

Dry Cr [Pine] Drainage

Lower Dry Cr (mouth to Sapolil)

Upper Dry Cr (Sapolil to forks)

Dry Cr Tribs (Mud[Dixie], Mud[Dry], NF Dry & SF Dr

Walla Walla, Dry to Mill

W Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Walsh)

Mill Cr, mouth to start of Corps Project at Gose St

Lower Mill Cr Tribs (Doan & Cold)

Mill Cr, Gose Street to Bennington Dam

Mill Cr, Bennington Dam to Blue Cr (plusTitus)

Blue Cr Drainage (including L. Blue)

Mill Cr, Blue Cr to Walla Walla water intake

Middle Mill Cr Tribs (Henry Canyon, Webb &Tiger)

Mill Cr, Walla Walla water intake to access limit

Upper Mill Tribs (NF, Low, Broken, Paradise)

Walla Walla, Mill to E L. Walla Walla (plus MacAvoy

Garrison Cr Drainage (plus Bryant)

Stone Cr Drainage

E Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Unnamed Sprin

Walla Walla, E Little Walla Walla to Tumalum Bridg

Yellowhawk mainstem (mouth to source)

Yellowhawk Tribs (Lassater, Russell, Reser & Caldw

Cottonwood Cr Drainage (including NF, SF & MF)

Birch Creek Drainage

Walla Walla, Tumalum Bridge to Nursery Bridge

Walla Walla, Nursery Br to Little Walla Walla Divers

Walla Walla, Little Walla Walla Diversion to forks

Couse Creek Drainage

NF Walla Walla, mouth to L. Meadows Canyon Cr (

NF Walla Walla, L. Meadows to access limit (plus B

SF Walla Walla, mouth to Elbow Creek

Lower SF Walla Walla Tribs (Flume Canyon, Elbow

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to access limit

Upper SF Walla Walla tribs (excluding Skiphorton &

Skiphorton & Reser Creek Drainages

Key to amount of change in factor (corresponding Loss/Gain Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityObstructionsOxygenPathogensSediment loadTemperature

Relative loss or gain by area

Relative gain

1/ Greatest absolute value of factor change (whether 

gain or loss) is shown for area (reaches may differ in 

gain or loss).

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Relative loss

Harassment/poachingPredationWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-122 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Tornado Chart 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration Degradation Restoration

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to access limit A 1 B 11

Cottonwood Cr Drainage (including NF, S D 16 B 2

Pine Cr mainstem (plus Swartz) C 15 B 4

Walla Walla, E Little Walla Walla to Tuma C 7 C 16

Walla Walla, Mill to E L. Walla Walla (plus D 21 B 2

Mill Cr, Blue Cr to Walla Walla water intak C 13 B 11

Dry Cr [Pine] Drainage D 18 B 8

NF Walla Walla, mouth to L. Meadows Ca C 3 D 23

E Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Unnam C 14 C 15

NF Walla Walla, L. Meadows to access lim C 10 C 20

Mill Cr, mouth to start of Corps Project at D 23 B 10

Walla Walla, Touche to Dry (plus Mud Cr) E 29 B 6

Walla Walla, Dry to Mill E 31 B 5

Couse Creek Drainage D 19 C 18

Lower SF Walla Walla Tribs (Flume Cany C 8 D 30

SF Walla Walla, mouth to Elbow Creek B 2 E 36

Yellowhawk mainstem (mouth to source) E 30 B 8

Lower Walla Walla (mouth to Touche) E 38 A 1

Walla Walla, Little Walla Walla Diversion C 3 E 38

Walla Walla, Tumalum Bridge to Nursery C 6 E 35

W Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Wals D 21 C 21

Yellowhawk Tribs (Lassater, Russell, Res D 25 C 17

Mill Cr, Bennington Dam to Blue Cr (plusT D 19 D 24

Mill Cr, Walla Walla water intake to acces C 11 E 32

Upper Dry Cr (Sapolil to forks) D 24 C 19

Upper SF Walla Walla tribs (excluding Sk C 5 E 38

Lower Dry Cr (mouth to Sapolil) E 34 B 11

Mill Cr, Gose Street to Bennington Dam E 38 B 7

Walla Walla, Nursery Br to Little Walla Wa C 8 E 38

Skiphorton & Reser Creek Drainages C 12 E 37

Garrison Cr Drainage (plus Bryant) E 37 C 14

Upper Mill Tribs (NF, Low, Broken, Paradi D 17 E 34

Lower Mill Cr Tribs (Doan & Cold) D 26 D 27

Birch Creek Drainage D 27 D 28

Stone Cr Drainage E 35 C 21

Dry Cr Tribs (Mud[Dixie], Mud[Dry], NF Dr E 32 D 25

Middle Mill Cr Tribs (Henry Canyon, Webb D 27 D 31

Blue Cr Drainage (including L. Blue) E 36 D 26

Lower Touche (mouth to Coppei) E 38 E 33

Percentage change Percentage change Percentage change

Category/rank Category/rank

Geographic Area

Walla Walla Summer Steelhead

Relative Importance Of Geographic Areas For Protection and Restoration Measures After Scenario Implementation

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%
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-123 

Scenario Diagnostic Report – Diagnostic Summary 

Priority 1 and 2 Subbasin Actions – 100 years 

Walla Walla Summer Steelhead

Protection and Restoration Strategic Priority Summary After Scenario Implementation

Attribute class priority for restoration

Lower Walla Walla (mouth to Touche)

Lower Touche (mouth to Coppei)

Walla Walla, Touche to Dry (plus Mud Cr)

Pine Cr mainstem (plus Swartz)

Dry Cr [Pine] Drainage

Lower Dry Cr (mouth to Sapolil)

Upper Dry Cr (Sapolil to forks)

Dry Cr Tribs (Mud[Dixie], Mud[Dry], NF Dry & SF Dry)

Walla Walla, Dry to Mill

W Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Walsh)

Mill Cr, mouth to start of Corps Project at Gose St

Lower Mill Cr Tribs (Doan & Cold)

Mill Cr, Gose Street to Bennington Dam

Mill Cr, Bennington Dam to Blue Cr (plusTitus)

Blue Cr Drainage (including L. Blue)

Mill Cr, Blue Cr to Walla Walla water intake

Middle Mill Cr Tribs (Henry Canyon, Webb &Tiger)

Mill Cr, Walla Walla water intake to access limit

Upper Mill Tribs (NF, Low, Broken, Paradise)

Walla Walla, Mill to E L. Walla Walla (plus MacAvoy & 

Garrison Cr Drainage (plus Bryant)

Stone Cr Drainage

E Little Walla Walla Drainage (plus Unnamed Spring &

Walla Walla, E Little Walla Walla to Tumalum Bridge

Yellowhawk mainstem (mouth to source)

Yellowhawk Tribs (Lassater, Russell, Reser & Caldwel

Cottonwood Cr Drainage (including NF, SF & MF)

Birch Creek Drainage

Walla Walla, Tumalum Bridge to Nursery Bridge

Walla Walla, Nursery Br to Little Walla Walla Diversion

Walla Walla, Little Walla Walla Diversion to forks

Couse Creek Drainage

NF Walla Walla, mouth to L. Meadows Canyon Cr (plu

NF Walla Walla, L. Meadows to access limit (plus Big M

SF Walla Walla, mouth to Elbow Creek

Lower SF Walla Walla Tribs (Flume Canyon, Elbow)

SF Walla Walla, Elbow to access limit

Upper SF Walla Walla tribs (excluding Skiphorton & Re

Skiphorton & Reser Creek Drainages

Key to strategic priority (corresponding Benefit Category letter also shown)

A B CD & E

High Medium Low Indirect or General

Geographic area priority

1/ "Channel stability" applies to freshwater areas only.

Key habitat quantity

Geographic area

Protection benefitRestoration benefit

Channel stabilityChemicalsCompetition (w/ hatch)Competition (other sp)FlowFoodHabitat diversityHarassment/poachingObstructionsOxygenPathogensPredationSediment loadTemperatureWithdrawals
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-124 

Appendix H 

Literature Cited

Beechie, T.J., and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid habitat-forming processes 

in Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries 24:6-15. 

Beechie, T.J., G. Pess, E. Beamer, G. Lucchetti, and R.E. Bilby. 2004. Role of watershed 

assessments in recovery planning for salmon. Pages 194-225 in D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, and 

D.B. Booth (eds.) Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 

WA. 

Bolton, S., D.B. Booth, and D.R. Montgomery. 2004. Restoration of Puget Sound rivers: do we 

know how to do it? Pages 483-490 in D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, and D.B. Booth (eds.) 

Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 

Cockrum, T., and M. Omeg. 2003. Fifteenmile Creek orchard pesticide pollution risk study; 

WyEast Resource Conservation and Development Area. Annual Report, Project No. 200102200, 

BPA Report DOE/BP-00005254-1. 

Collins, B.D., D.R. Montgomery, and A.D. Haas. 2002. Historical changes in the distribution and 

functions of large wood in Puget Lowland rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 59:66-76. 

Fox, M.J. 2001. A new look at the quantities and volumes of instream wood in forested basins 

within Washington State. Masters Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Fox, M.J. 2003. Spatial organization, position, and source characteristics of large woody debris 

in natural systems. PhD Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Konrad, C.P. 2004. Opportunities and constraints for urban stream rehabilitation. Pages 292-317 

in D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, and D.B. Booth (eds.) Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 

Lichatowich, J., L. Mobrand, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel. 1995. An approach to the diagnosis and 

treatment of depleted Pacific salmon populations in freshwater ecosystems. Fisheries (Bethesda) 

20:10-18. 

Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell. 1994. From the Forest to the Sea: the Ecology of Wood in Streams, 

Rivers, Estuaries, and Oceans, St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. 

Middle Deschutes Local Advisory Committee. 2006. Middle Deschutes Agricultural Water 

Quality Management Area Plan. Jefferson County SWCD, Redmond, OR. 

Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelley. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by 

beaver. BioScience 38:753-762. 
Appendix H 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

H-125 

Naiman, R.J., H. Décamps, and M.E. McClain. 2005. Riparia Ecology, Conservation and 

Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier Academic Press. 

Opperman, J.J., and A.M. Merenlender. 2004. The effectiveness of riparian restoration for 

improving in-stream fish habitat in four hardwood-dominated California streams. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 822-834. 

Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: W.R. Meehan (Ed.). Influence of Forest and Rangeland 

Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication No. 19. 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-1

APPENDIX I

Oregon Mid-Columbia Steelhead

Cost Estimates for Recovery Actions
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-2

Cost Estimates for Recovery Actions 

Draft – 9 October 2007 

Introduction

The ESA section 4(f)(1) requires that recovery plans include “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” (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, as amended). This draft appendix is 

intended to meet this ESA requirement and will be used by NMFS to estimate the total recovery 

costs for the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS in its draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS Plan. 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), together with its Recovery Planning 

Team, Management Action Teams, and the Oregon Mid-Columbia River Sounding Board have 

developed an extensive list of projects needed to recover the Oregon populations in the MidColumbia steelhead DPS. These projects are intended to address the recovery of ESA-listed 

Mid-Columbia River steelhead. The project list was developed using the most up-to-date 

assessment of Mid-Columbia steelhead recovery needs, without consideration of cost or potential 

funding. This draft appendix provides cost estimates for each project where available 

information was sufficient to do so. 

Methods and Data

The basic approach taken to estimate the cost of each project was to combine estimates of the 

scale of the project and the cost per scalar unit for that type of project. This method is known as 

the unit cost method, and it is appropriate when approximate estimates are sufficient. The 

estimation took the following steps: 

1. Actions listed in Section 9 of the draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS Plan were grouped 

into a set of project types (e.g., bank stabilization and exclusion fencing). In some cases, 

the actions listed in Section 9 differed only in minor variations in wording; in other cases, 

actions had more significant descriptive variations but could still be linked to a standard 

project type. 

2. The scale for each action listed in Section 9 was determined using information in that 

section or supplemental information provided by ODFW. Scale was measured in two 

basic ways: 

a. Stream miles of treatment, taken from the EDT analysis used in the recovery plan; 

or 

b. Number of structures, taken from Section 9 of the recovery plan or provided by 

ODFW. 

In a few cases, the scale of an action was not used in the cost estimation, as the action 

was unique to a particular location (e.g., Phase III of the Umatilla Basin Project). For 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-3

some actions, no scale estimate is available at this time, in which case no cost estimate is 

provided in this draft appendix. 

3. The unit cost of a project type was estimated using cost data from existing habitat 

restoration projects and professional judgment. These costs reflected the materials and 

labor needed to implement a project (see step #4 for additional costs). Three sets of data 

were used to support the estimation of unit costs: 

a. Habitat restoration project costs in the Oregon portion of the NMFS Interior 

Columbia recovery domain and in adjacent Washington subbasins. The cost data 

were drawn from three funding sources: the Oregon Watershed Enhancement 

Board (OWEB) grant program, the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program 

(GRMWP), and the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) 

grant program. This data set included approximately 1400 individual habitat 

restoration projects. Projects that included only one type of activity were then 

analyzed to estimate the unit cost of that activity. 

b. GRMWP unit cost estimates. For a limited number of project types, the GRMWP 

estimated unit costs of their projects (personal communication, Cecilia Noyes, 

GRMWP). 

c. SRFB unit costs. As part of the SRFB grant process, applicants provide the SRFB 

with estimates of the unit costs for various project types. Unit cost estimates were 

drawn from SRFB projects in the Washington portion of the NMFS Interior 

Columbia recovery domain for this dataset. 

The three data sources provided different amounts of coverage for the full set of project 

types constructed in the first step and in a few cases (e.g., land acquisition and water 

rights transfers), they did not have sufficient data to support the estimation of unit costs. 

Where the data were judged to be sufficient in quantity and quality, professional 

judgment was used to develop a unit cost estimate, favoring the mid-point of a range 

across data sources and projects (where a valid range existed) and rounding appropriately 

to avoid a false sense of precision. 

4. Finally, the resulting total cost estimate was multiplied by 1.6 to reflect the additional 

costs of project planning, coordination, engineering, permits, and so forth. The multiplier 

was estimated after consulting with ODFW and other parties experienced in habitat 

restoration project implementation. 

Cost Estimates for Recovery Actions 

Table I-1 provides cost estimates for all recovery actions by population, strategy, and category of 

action. The action categories are the following: 

• Baseline: These are the actions categorized as part of an ongoing, existing program. No 

cost estimate is provided for these actions. 

• Cost estimate exists: These are actions for which a estimate and scale are available. 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-4

• TBD: These are actions that do not have cost estimates at this time and that are listed as 

To Be Determined (TBD). The reason for the TBD status is indicated in the following 

way: 

o TBD (1): In these cases, costs need to be developed for specific sites and 

projects. 

o TBD (2): These are actions for which a unit cost estimate exists but for which no 

scale (stream miles or project inventory) is available. 

o TBD (3): These are actions for which a unit cost estimate needs to be developed. 

These actions may also need a scale estimate. 

The Action name is taken from Section 9 of the draft Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS Plan. The 

Total Cost Estimate columns are the following: 

• P1 miles: Cost estimate for the Priority 1 stream miles used in the EDT analysis. 

• P1-2 miles: Cost estimate for the Priority 1 and Priority 2 stream miles used in the EDT 

analysis. 

• Projects: Cost estimate for the number of structures (screens, culverts, etc.) identified for 

that action and population. 

If an action is categorized as Baseline, the cost estimate is listed as N/A (Not Applicable). The 

cost estimates for P1 miles and P1-2 miles are cumulative (P1 cost estimate < P1-2 cost estimate) 

and should not be added together. The Projects cost estimate can be added to either the P1 miles 

estimate or the P1-2 estimate. 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead

Table I-2 provides information on current expenditures and expected five year budget amounts 

for habitat projects by a wide range of local, state, and federal agencies and NGOs. This table 

provides context for the estimated costs of recovery actions and provides a basis for estimating 

possible levels of funding for recovery plan implementation over a given period of time. 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-5

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Deschutes River Eastside 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

Baseline 

Develop new and manage existing habitat Cooperative Agreements 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage anBaseline Maintain irrigation diversions and screens 

Culverts: Replace or remove barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts, irrigation structures, infiltration galleries 

Cost $0 estimate exists Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Dams: Replace or remove barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts, irrigation structures, infiltration galleries 

TBD 

Irrigation Structures: Replace or remove barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts, irrigation structures, infiltration galleries 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $4,893,840 $estimate exists Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $4,893,840 $
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-6

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds $743,821 Restore natural channel form, includes berm and levee removal $4,893,840 $

Cost estimate exists Stabilize streambanks with passive restoration processes $4,893,840 $5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. 

Install off-stream livestock watering $0 Install/maintain fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas $724,320 $

Cost estimate exists Restore natural riparian communities $1,957,536 $TBD Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Baseline 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Cost estimate exists 

Water retention structures $316,324 

TBD Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Continue TMDL monitoring Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Baseline 

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-7

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural upl

Convert to perennial crops/vegetation (CRP) Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

Baseline 

Promote reforestation and fuels management 

Achieve 95% conversion to no till farming Remove junipers Restore native upland plants and remove noxious weeds 

TBD 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Deschutes River Westside 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. 

Baseline 

Special management designations on public lands 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage anBaseline Restore passage at Pelton-Round Butte Complex 

Culverts: Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures $0 Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Cost estimate exists Replace screens that do not meet criteria $0 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-8

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

TBD Dams: Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Irrigation Structures: Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation 

structures 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $5,407,200 $2estimate exists Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $5,407,200 $24. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds $875,197 $Restore natural channel form $5,407,200 $2

Cost estimate exists Stabilize streambanks $5,407,200 $25. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. 

Install fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas $0 Install off-stream livestock watering $0 Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate $1,120,933 $

Cost estimate exists 

Restore natural riparian communities $372,384 $

TBD Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Baseline 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

TBD Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-9

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Continue TMDL monitoring Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Baseline 

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 

TBD Reduce chemical pollution inputs 8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural uplBaseline Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

Utilize appropriate fire suppression techniques 

Achieve 95% conversion to no till farming Restore native upland plants 

TBD 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Fifteenmile 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Baseline Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural 

ecological processes. 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Protect the highest quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage an

Culverts: Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures $0 Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Cost estimate exists Replace screens that do not meet criteria $0 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-10

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

TBD Dams: Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Irrigation Structures: Replace barriers blocking passage including dams, road culverts and irrigation 

structures 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $779,528 estimate exists Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $5,846,464 $4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Increase role and abundance of wood and large organic debris in streambeds $622,397 Restore natural channel form $5,846,464 $

Cost estimate exists Stabilize streambanks $9,620,850 $5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. 

Install fencing to exclude livestock from riparian areas $638,230 Install off-stream livestock watering $438,365 Plant riparian vegetation where appropriate $0 

Cost estimate exists 

Restore natural riparian communities $1,148,814 $

TBD Eradicate invasive plant species from riparian areas 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures Implement urban conservation measures Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Baseline 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

TBD Finish piping Orchard Ridge and Wolf Run diversions 

Lease or purchase water rights and convert to instream 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-11

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Continue TMDL monitoring Implement Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan Manage irrigation return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Baseline 

Minimize unnatural factors that lead to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels 

TBD Reduce chemical pollution inputs 8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural upl

Convert to perennial crops/vegetation Develop Integrated Fruit Production (IFPnet) plans Employ BMPs to minimize unnatural rates of erosion 

Baseline 

Promote fuel management 

Initiate demonstration projects Achieve 95% conversion to no till farming 

TBD 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Lower John Day 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status Protect access to key habitats 

Baseline 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage an
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-12

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Culverts: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

$0 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Cost estimate exists 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria $0 

Dams: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures Irrigation Structures: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

TBD 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $15,839,274 $2estimate exists Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $9,583,718 $2TBD Restore wet meadows 4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds $1,102,763 $Restore natural channel form $7,165,397 $2

Cost estimate exists Stabilize streambanks $11,271,989 $25. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. Cost estimate exists 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities $6,148,883 $1

TBD Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-13

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency 

Baseline 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

TBD Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. Baseline Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations 

Continue TMDL monitoring 

Cost estimate exists 

Increase riparian shading $2,273,984 $

TBD Reduce chemical pollution inputs 8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural uplBaseline Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Initiate demonstration projects Continue to promote no-till farming or other seeding techniques that reduce erosion where site conditions and technology are suitable Manage vegetation, including juniper removal Restore native upland plant communities 

TBD 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-14

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Middle Fork John Day 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status Protect access to key habitats 

Baseline 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage an

Culverts: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Cost $0 estimate exists Replace screens that do not meet criteria $0 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams Dams: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures Irrigation Structures: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

TBD 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $5,430,067 $estimate exists Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $5,430,067 $
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-15

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

TBD Restore wet meadows 4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains $316,626 Restore natural channel form $4,889,888 $

Cost estimate exists Stabilize streambanks $2,340,901 $5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. Cost estimate exists 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities $2,542,437 $

TBD Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

Baseline 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

TBD Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations Continue TMDL monitoring 

Baseline 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Cost estimate exists 

Increase riparian shading $891,400 $

TBD Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural uplBaseline Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices Cost estimate exists 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads $1,060,800 $
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-16

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Initiate demonstration projects Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

TBD 

Restore native upland plant communities 

North Fork John Day 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status Protect access to key habitats 

Baseline 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage an

Culverts: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

Cost $0 estimate exists Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams, or remove the barrier Dams: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures Irrigation Structures: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

TBD 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-17

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $2,104,989 $estimate exists 

Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels and reconnect surface flow/restore fish passage in tributaries. 

$2,237,203 $

TBD Restore wet meadows 4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains $504,664 $Restore natural channel form $2,082,064 $

Cost estimate exists Stabilize streambanks $775,710 $5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. Cost estimate exists 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities $2,108,218 $

TBD Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

Baseline 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

TBD Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations Continue TMDL monitoring 

Baseline 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Cost estimate exists 

Increase riparian shading $679,021 $
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-18

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

TBD Address contamination from mine related discharge 

Reduce chemical pollution inputs 

8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural uplBaseline Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices Cost estimate exists 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads $707,200 

Initiate demonstration projects Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

TBD 

Restore native upland plant communities 

South Fork John Day 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status Protect access to key habitats 

Baseline 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage an

Culverts: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

$0 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Cost estimate exists 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria $0 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-19

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams Dams: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures Irrigation Structures: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

TBD 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $0 estimate exists Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $0 TBD Restore wet meadows 4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds and in floodplains $205,523 Restore natural channel form $0 

Cost estimate exists Stabilize streambanks $0 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. Cost estimate exists 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities $926,317 $

TBD Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

Baseline 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

TBD Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-20

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations Continue TMDL monitoring 

Baseline 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Cost estimate exists 

Increase riparian shading $94,026 

TBD Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural uplBaseline Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Initiate demonstration projects Manage vegetation, including juniper removal Restore native upland plant communities 

TBD 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 

Umatilla 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Continue existing protections and/or increase protection of Federal lands; implement Forest Practices Act and PACFISH/INFISH Establish setbacks to protect waterways from forest management, agricultural activities, and other land use practices that would disrupt ecosystem function Explore opportunities to incorporate priority areas into state legislation. Incorporate priority habitat areas into the Natural Area Overlay Zone provision of the Umatilla County Development Ordinance 

Baseline 

Review, modify and enforce existing land use planning documents and ordinances pertaining to riparian and floodplain management to better address habitat and water quality issues. 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-21

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect high quality habitats through acquisition, conservation easements and cooperative agreements 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage anBaseline Operate and Maintain fish passage facilities to meet criteria 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams $0 Culverts: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

$0 

Irrigation Structures: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

$0 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Cost estimate exists 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria $0 

TBD Dams: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation 

structures 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $5,595,674 $estimate exists Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $5,595,674 $TBD Remove dikes and levies 4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds $1,067,592 $Restore natural channel form $4,966,422 $

Cost estimate exists Stabilize and protect streambanks $5,019,445 $TBD Construct rock and log weirs to create pool habitats or elevate incised channels 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-22

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. Baseline Maintain existing widths of RHCAs on USFS lands. 

Develop no-cultivation riparian buffer on agricultural lands and establish riparian setbacks for structures in areas where activities could upset riparian function 

$263,339 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities $3,701,598 $

Cost estimate exists 

Riparian exclosure fencing $1,890,197 $

TBD Close, remove, and restore riparian road prisms 

Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. Baseline Implement agricultural water conservation measures 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phase I and II Implement Umatilla Basin Project Phase III Downstream water rights transfers File for additional ISWRs 

TBD 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. Baseline Implement water quality management plans TBD Address point sources of water pollution 8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural uplBaseline Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Restore native upland plant communities Initiate demonstration projects 

TBD 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-23

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Upper John Day 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Adopt and manage Cooperative Agreements Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Designate additional wilderness and wild and scenic status Protect access to key habitats 

Baseline 

Special management designations in forest and BLM plans 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect high quality habitats through acquisition or conservation easements 2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage an

Culverts: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

$0 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Cost estimate exists 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria $0 

Construct ladders over existing permanent concrete or earth fill dams Dams: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures Irrigation Structures: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, road culverts and irrigation structures 

TBD 

Remove or minimize use of push up dams 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost Reconnect floodplains to channels $4,459,760 $estimate exists Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $6,132,419 $
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-24

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

TBD Restore wet meadows 4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds $357,072 $Restore natural channel form $7,520,379 $

Cost estimate exists Stabilize streambanks $4,459,760 $5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. Cost estimate exists 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities $2,337,970 $

TBD Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Implement agricultural water conservation measures Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency Increase pool habitat (beaver ponds) 

Baseline 

Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

TBD Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Apply BMPs to animal feeding operations Continue TMDL monitoring 

Baseline 

Manage return flow to reduce extreme stream temperatures 

Cost estimate exists 

Increase riparian shading $1,787,741 $

TBD Reduce chemical pollution and nutrient inputs 8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural uplBaseline Employ BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices Cost estimate exists 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads $104,000 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-25

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Initiate demonstration projects Manage vegetation, including juniper removal 

TBD 

Restore native upland plant communities 

Walla Walla 1. Protect and conserve natural ecological processes that support the viability of populations and their primary life history stra

life cycle. 

Consistently apply Best Management Practices and existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes. Continue existing protections and/or increase protection of Federal lands; implement Forest Practices Act and PACFISH/INFISH Establish setbacks to protect waterways from forest management, agricultural activities, and other land use practices that would disrupt ecosystem function Explore opportunities to incorporate priority areas into state legislation. Incorporate priority habitat areas into the Natural Area Overlay Zone provision of the Umatilla County Development Ordinance 

Baseline 

Review, modify and enforce existing land use planning documents and ordinances pertaining to riparian and floodplain management to better address habitat and water quality issues. 

Cost estimate exists 

Conduct outreach to resource users and managers $0 

TBD Protect and conserve rare and unique functioning habitats 

Protect high quality habitats through acquisition, conservation easements and cooperative agreements 

2. Restore passage and connectivity to habitats blocked or impaired by artificial barriers and maintain unimpaired passage anBaseline Operate and Maintain fish passage facilities 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-26

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Construct ladders over existing permanent irrigation diversions $0 Culverts: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, bridges, road culverts and irrigation structures 

$0 

Irrigation Structures: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, bridges, road culverts and irrigation structures 

$0 

Provide screening at 100% of irrigation diversions $0 

Cost estimate exists 

Replace screens that do not meet criteria $0 

TBD Dams: Remove or replace barriers blocking passage such as dams, bridges, road culverts and 

irrigation structures 

3. Restore floodplain connectivity and function and maintain unimpaired connectivity and function. Baseline Promote the maintenance and creation of beaver dams to restore the role in natural ecological 

processes. 

Cost estimate exists 

Reconnect floodplains to channels $1,969,200 $Reconnect side channels and off-channel habitats to stream channels $1,969,200 $

TBD Remove dikes and levies 4. Restore degraded channel structure and complexity and maintain unimpaired structure and complexity. Baseline Implement bridge maintenance BMPs 

Place stable wood and other large organic debris in streambeds $302,064 Restore natural channel form $2,589,120 $

Cost estimate exists Stabilize and protect streambanks $2,589,120 $TBD Construct rock and log weirs to create pool habitats or elevate incised channels 5. Restore riparian condition and LWD recruitment and maintain unimpaired conditions. 

Develop no-cultivation riparian buffer on agricultural lands and establish riparian setbacks for structures in areas where activities could upset riparian function 

$129,456 

Restore natural riparian vegetative communities $1,035,648 $

Cost estimate exists 

Riparian exclosure fencing $575,360 $
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-27

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

Close, remove, and restore riparian road prisms Develop grazing strategies that promote riparian recovery 

TBD 

Protect high quality riparian habitats and unstable areas 

6. Restore natural hydrograph to provide sufficient flow during critical periods. 

Close areas to appropriation of new water uses Improve irrigation conveyance and efficiency Investigate feasibility of water storage or exchange to improve instream flows for steelhead Monitor/regulate water withdrawals 

Baseline 

Set criteria to protect flows for fish habitat from new appropriations 

Aquifer storage and recovery Enhance hyporheic flows and spring inputs Implement shallow aquifer recharge Downstream water rights transfers File for additional ISWRs 

TBD 

Lease or acquire water rights and convert to instream 

7. Improve degraded water quality and maintain unimpaired water quality. 

Implement pest management plans for fruit growers Implement water quality management plans Improve municipal stormwater management and treatment Permit and enforce actions that could affect water quality 

Baseline 

Permit waterway alteration activities and enforce rules 

TBD Address point sources of water pollution 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-28

Table I-1: All Actions by Population, Strategy, and Category 

Population, Total 

Strategy, 

Category Action name P1 miles P

8. Restore degraded upland processes to minimize unnatural rates of erosion and runoff, and maintain unimpaired natural uplBaseline Apply BMPs to forest practices, livestock grazing, road management and agricultural practices 

Implement CREP and CCRP buffers Initiate demonstration projects Restore native upland plant communities 

TBD 

Upgrade or remove problem forest roads 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-29

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Fifteenmile Creek Population 

CTWSRO CREP $10,000/yr $50,000 

Fifteenmile habitat program 

 100,000 Coordinate LWD, riparian exclosures

Riparian buffers $103,000/yr $500,000 Funds are for technical work. USDA 

and OWEB leveraging technical doll

No-till conversion $40,000/yr $100,000 Nearing saturation/completion Irrigation efficiency $30,000/yr 150,000 

Wasco Co. SWCD 

Fish habitat $125,000/yr $250,000 eliminate passage barriers, add rootw

fords 

USFS Fish habitat – 

Fifteenmile Cr 

$25,000/yr Partner in project 

Fish HabitatFifteenmile Cr ODFW $322,662/yr $1,600,000 Riparian exclosures, off channel wate

Fish Screening $200,000/yr $800,000 New construction and O&M 

Totals - Fifteenmile Creek Population $855,662/yr $3,550,000 

Eastside Deschutes River Population 

Fish habitat - Trout Cr $30,000/yr $150,000 Partner in project Culvert Replacements $75,000/yr $500,000  Trout Creek (2) 

USFS 

 Dick Creek 

CREP $300,000/yr $1,250,000 Depends on program availability, Inc

installed practices, maintenance, etc. 

Habitat $20,000/yr $100,000 Passive restoration projects, i.e. off-s

Sherman County SWCD 

Upland $155,000/yr $775,000 Erosion control structures, pasture fen

reseeding, etc. 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-30

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Trout Creek Watershed Improvement and CREP – Fish Habitat 

$395,000/yr Phase 3 Trout Creek Channel Habitat 

Channel Reconstruction Project 

Trout Creek Watershed Improvement & CREP– Fish Habitat 

 $650,000 Antelope Creek Channel Habitat Imp

CREP – 2 miles 

Jefferson SWCD 

IWM $500,000 Irrigation Improvement Projects 

Deschutes River Conservancy 

Instream habitat restoration 

$15,000/yr $75,000 

Fish habitat – Trout Cr Ranch 

PGE $75,000/yr $950,000 PGE-managed project 

Fish habitat – Trout Cr $300,000 in 2006 $600,000 Funding of projects. PGE spent $300

2006. 

Riparian buffers $40,000/yr $200,000 Funds are for technical work. USDA 

and OWEB are leveraging the techniCREP program. 

Wasco Co. SWCD 

Upland conservation $120,000/yr $400,000 

Fish habitat – Trout Creek 

$335,000/yr $1,750,000 Riparian exclosures, off channel wate

removal/channel reconstruction work

ODFW 

Fish screening and passage- Trout Creek 

$100,000/yr $500,000 New construction and O&M 

Upland and riparian weed treatment 

BLM $36,000/yr $180,000 

Stream and riparian restoration 

$29,000/yr $150,000 Includes maintenance work on existin

Totals - Eastside Deschutes River Population

$2,025,000/yr $8,730,000 

Westside Deschutes River Population 

Fish habitat - Whychus Cr 

USFS $30,000/yr $150,000 Partner in project 

Fish habitat – Metolius R 

$25,000/yr $150,000 Partner in project 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-31

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Culvert Replacements in Metolius River Watershed 

$100,000/yr $150,000 Lake Creek, Roaring Creek and Bear 

Reservation Watershed maintenance (Shitike, Warm Springs rivers) 

$46,000/yr $750,000 Implementing and maintaining ripari

off channel water sources. 

Fish habitat (Beaver Creek, Whychus, Mill, Shitike, Coyote, Quartz, Metolius, lower Deschutes river) 

$32,000/yr $250,000 Large channel reconstruction, lwd, ga

riparian plantings 

CTWSRO 

Passage improvements road decommissioning 

$120,000/yr $600,000 Replacing or removing culverts for im

capacity 

Instream Leasing $30,000/yr $150,000 Whychus Creek Water Rights Acquisitions 

$200,000/yr $1,000,000 Whychus Creek 

Deschutes River Conservancy 

Water Conservation $900,000/yr $4,500,000 Whychus Creek 

Fish habitat / stream restoration / riparian restoration (private land) 

$275,000/yr $3,250,000 Major projects scheduled on Whychu

Creek, and Metolius River 

Screening / passage at diversions 

$0/yr $875,000 Major diversion retrofit projects sche

Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 

Culvert upgrades $0/yr $125,000 Several small improvement projects s
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-32

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Fish habitat – Whychus Cr 

$18,000 – 2006 

Fish habitat – Metolius R 

PGE 

Fish habitat – Lower Deschutes 

$120,000 – 2006 

Riparian buffers $15,000/yr $75,000 Funds are for technical work. USDA 

and OWEB are leveraging the techniCREP program. 

Wasco So. SWCD 

Upland conservation (includes irrig. efficiency) 

 $50,000/yr $250,000 

ODFW Fish habitat – 

planning, coordination, M&E 

$15,000/yr $75,000 Whychus Creek and Metolius River 

Upland and riparian weed treatment 

BLM $9,000/yr $45,000 

Stream and riparian restoration 

$29,000/yr $150,000 Includes maintenance work on existin

Totals - Westside Deschutes River Population

$2,014,000/yr $12,545,000 

Crooked River Population (reintroduction area) 

PGE Fish habitat – Crooked 

R 

$150,000 in 2006 Funding of projects, including McKa

Instream leasing $40,000/yr $200,000 Water rights acquisitions 

$400,000/yr $2,000,000 

Deschutes River Conservancy 

Water conservation $1,000,000/yr $5,000,000 

Crooked River Passage and screening $2,700,000 Lower Crooked River and McKay CrWatershed Council Fish habitat – Crooked 

River & McKay Creek 

 $1,400,000 Habitat enhancement – Prineville Va

(McKay Cr) 

USFS Fish habitat – McKay 

Creek drainage 

$50,000/yr $120,000 McKay and Little McKay fish habita
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-33

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Culvert Replacements $100,000/yr $375,000 Improvements in passage in the Little 

Creeks and tribs. 

Fish screening and Passage 

ODFW $200,000/yr $1,000,000 New construction and O&M 

Fish habitat – planning, coordination, M&E 

$15,000/yr $75,000 

Upland and riparian weed treatment 

$27,000/yr $110,000 

Stream and riparian restoration 

$22,000/yr $110,000 Includes maintenance work on existin

BLM 

Fish Passage $155,500 Stearns Dam Removal 

Totals - Crooked River Population (reintroduction area)

$2,004,000/yr $13,245,500 

Lower John Day River Population (below Dayville) 

habitat $33,000/yr $165,000 OWEB Rock Creek project $28,000/yr One year 

Gillian County SWCD 

Weed control $30,000/yr $120,000 From Oregon Weed Board 

Fish Habitat - Lower $100,000/yr $500,000 (BPA funded @ $540,000 in 2007 an

2009). The budget is spread out depethe John Day Subbasin. 

ODFW 

Fish screening and Passage 

$450,000/yr $2,250,000 New construction and O&M – John D

CREP $400,000/yr $2,000,000 Depends on program availability, Inc

installed practices, maintenance, etc. 

Habitat $30,000/yr $150,000 Passive restoration projects, i.e. off-s

and 1 possible channel project 

Sherman County SWCD 

Upland $185,000/yr $925,000 Erosion control structures, pasture fen

reseeding, etc. 

Pine Creek Conservation area 

$210,000/yr $1,750,000 Invasive weed control, CREP implem

juniper control 

CTWSRO 

John Day watershed restoration program 

$42,000/yr $325,000 Riparian plantings, juniper control, o

developments. 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-34

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

John Day watershed restoration program 

$294,532/yr $1,500,000 Pushup dam removals, Point of diver

flow coolers, 

Fish Habitat – Rock Creek 

$30,000/yr 

 Various projects $100,000 Ochoco NF 

USFS 

Culvert Replacements – Various tribs 

 $375,000 Ochoco NF 

Wasco Co. SWCD Riparian buffers $15,000/yr $75,000 Funds are for technical work. USDA 

and OWEB are leveraging the techniCREP program. 

Passage – diversion projects, culverts, bridge 

$485,000/yr $2,425,000 Replacement of push-up dams and ot

replacement, fish ladder, screen, Serv

Irrigation efficiency $390,000/yr $1,450,000 Converting open ditch to pipelines 

Wheeler County SWCD 

uplands $99,300/yr $500,000 Upland development, juniper remova

development 

Upland and riparian weed treatment 

BLM $54,000/yr 270,000 

Stream and riparian restoration 

$43,000/yr $215,000 Includes maintenance work on existin

Totals - Lower John Day River Population (below Dayville)

$2,918,832/yr $15,095,000 

North Fork John Day Population 

CTUIR Fish habitat $321,000/yr $1,600,000 (BPA - $249,000; NRCS - $50,000; P

Fish habitat – North Fork drainage 

$200,000/yr $500,000 (BPA funded @ $540,000 in 2007 an

2009). The budget is spread out depethe John Day Subbasin. 

ODFW 

Fish screening and Passage 

$300,000/yr $1,500,000 New construction and O&M – John D

CTWSRO John Day watershed 

restoration program 

$136000/yr 0 Pushup dam removals/ replacements 

Grant SWCD Fish Habitat – mine 

tailings, shaping for 

$192,000/yr $960,000 OWEB, Umatilla NF, CTUIT, USFW 

Acid Spill 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-35

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Flood Plain, reconnection & habitat diversity – Clear Creek Fish Habitat $14,500/yr $650,000 Levee Removal (future projects inclu

removals) 

Uplands $40,000/yr $350,000 (off stream watering, spring developm

North Fork John Day Watershed Council 

Weed Treatment $15,000/yr $125,000 (cost share program and developmen

Culverts and bridge fish passage improvements 

$50,000/yr $150,000 Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman NFs 

Riparian planting $10,000/yr $25000 Partner projects-Umatilla NF Road decommissioning-and obliterations 

$30,000/yr $250,000 fire and watershed restoration-Umati

Abandoned dredge tailings, redistribution/floodplain restoration 

$70,000/yr $25,000 Umatilla NF/Granite Creek watershe

and CTUIR 

Floodplain restoration/wood and revegetation 

$0/yr $25,000 Umatilla NF Partner projects w/ Gran

Road maintenance $30,000/yr $150,000 Erosion reduction-Umatilla NF Instream habitat improvement 

 $25,000 Partner project w/CTUIR 

Dredge tailing/fish passage restoration 

$0/yr $50,000 Wallowa-Whitman NF/Granite Creek 

USFS 

Upland revegetation $400,000 Fire rehab-Umatilla NF 

Upland and riparian weed treatment 

BLM $9,000/yr $45,000 

Stream and riparian restoration 

$7,000/yr $175,000 Includes maintenance work on existin

Totals - North Fork John Day Population $1,424,500/yr $7,005,000 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-36

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Middle Fork John Day Population 

Fish Habitat - Middle $100,000/yr $500,000 (BPA funded @ $540,000 in 2007 an

2009). The budget is spread out depethe John Day Subbasin. 

ODFW 

Fish screening and Passage 

$300,000/yr $1,500,000 New construction and O&M – John D

Oxbow Conservation area 

$139,000/yr $1,750,000 Invasive weed program, in-channel h

CREP 

Forrest Conservation area 

$146,000/yr $367,000 Invasive weed program, in-channel h

CREP 

CTWSRO 

John Day watershed restoration program 

$42,000/yr $330,000 Riparian plantings, juniper control, o

developments. 

Grant SWCD Fish passage – 

irrigation diversions MF and tributaries 

$243,835/yr $1,250,000 BPA, BOR 

Fish Habitat $300,000 Culvert replacement Uplands $20,000/yr $150,000 Off stream watering, juniper removal 

North Fork John Day Watershed Council Weed Treatment $7,000/yr $50,000 (cost share and development of a CW
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-37

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

The Nature Conservancy 

Fish habitat $375,000 

Riparian planting/revegetation 

USFS $10,000/yr 0/yr Fire rehab.-Umatilla NF 

Noxious weed control $20,000/yr $50,000 Umatilla NF 

USFS Riparian revegetation $28,000/yr $25,000 Culvert replacement sites-Malheur N

Noxious weed control $50,000/yr $250,000 Malheur NF 

Totals - Middle Fork John Day Population $1,105,835/yr $6,897,000 

South Fork John Day Population 

Fish Habitat - Middle $30,000/yr $150,000 (BPA funded @ $540,000 in 2007 an

2009). The budget is spread out depethe John Day Subbasin. 

ODFW – 2007- Fish Habitat 

Fish screening and Passage 

$300,000/yr $1,500,000 New construction and O&M – John D

John Day watershed restoration program 

 $0 Pushup dam removals, Point of diver

flow coolers, pump stations 

CTWSRO 

John Day watershed restoration program 

$10000/yr $50,000 Riparian plantings, juniper control, o

developments 

USFS Culvert Replacements 

– various tribs 

$25,000/yr $150,000 Ochoco NF 

USFS Noxious weed control $30,000/yr $150,000 

Erosion control seeding 

$644,000/yr $50,000 Fire restoration 

Grant SWCD Uplands - Juniper & 

Weed Control, Riparian Fence, OffSite Stock Water, Seeding 

$177,500/yr 8875,000 USDA National Forest Title II 
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-38

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Upland and riparian weed treatment 

BLM $36,000/yr $180,000 

Stream and riparian restoration 

$29,000/yr $150,000 Includes maintenance work on existin

Totals - South Fork John Day Population $1,281,500/yr $11,255,000 

Upper John Day River Population 

Fish Habitat - Upper $110,000/yr $550,000 (BPA funded @ $540,000 in 2007 an

2009). The budget is spread out depethe John Day Subbasin. 

ODFW – 2007- Fish Habitat 

Fish screening and Passage 

$450,000/yr $2,250,000 New construction and O&M -- John D

John Day watershed restoration program 

$436,000/yr $2,500,000 Pushup dam removals, Point of diver

flow coolers, 

CTWSRO 

John Day watershed restoration program 

$42,000/yr $325,000 Riparian plantings, juniper control, o

developments. 

Grant SWCD Fish Passage, 

Diversions & Culverts, Irrigation Return Flow Cooling 

$691,390/yr $3,500,000 BPA, BOR 

Noxious weed control $50,000/yr $250,000 Grazing management improvement-upland water development 

$60,000/yr 0/yr 

USFS 

Riparian fence $25,000/yr $50,000 

Upland and riparian weed treatment 

BLM $9,000/yr $45,000 

Stream and riparian restoration 

$7,000/yr $35,000 Includes maintenance work on existin

Totals - Upper John Day River Population $1,880,390/yr $9,505,000 

Umatilla River Population 

CTUIR Fish habitat $548,000/yr $2,700,000 (BPA - $326,000; PCSRF - $22,000; 

$50,000) 

Umatilla Co. Soil Fertilizer reduction $150,520/yr $300,000 OWEB & EPA incentive to use prec
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-39

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

Weed Control $103,250/yr $500,000 OWEB-Promoting use of the WeedSFish passage improvement 

$150,000/yr $750,000 OWEB-ODF&W Improve fish passa

irrigation efficiency 

& Water Conservation District 

Off stream watering facilities 

$71,044/yr $400,000 OWEB- providing upland watering f

USFS $0 USFS is not currently investing in the 

restoration 

ODFW Fish habitat $300,000/yr $1,400,000 BPA funded 

Fish screening and Passage 

$100,000/yr $500,000 New construction and O&M -- John D

Totals - Umatilla River Population $1,422,814/yr $6,550,000 

Walla Walla River Population 

BPA fish habitat $338,000/yr $1,700,000 BPA ladders/screens $250,000/yr $1,250,000 other $22,000/yr $110,000 

CTUIR 

TOTAL $610,000/yr $3,050,000 (BPA - $588,000; PCSRF - $22,000) 

Fish passage $76,000/yr $800,000 OWEB, NRCS –push up dam replaceFlow improvement $157,000/yr $1,200,000 OWEB, BPA, NRCS – irrigation effi

transferred to instream water right 

Habitat/ levee setback $89,000/yr $250,000 OWEB - moving corral off creek ban

levee 

Walla Walla WSC 

Pesticide use reduction $20,000/yr $60,000 ODEQ – assisting growers in reducin

reaching streams 

Umatilla Co. Soil & Water Conservation District 

Animal (cattle) Relocation 

$62,142/yr OWEB- moving cattle off creek ripar
Appendix I 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

I-40

Table I-2 

Current Average Expenditures on Habitat Projects for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

Agency or 

Organization Program 

Recent average 

annual 

expenditures or 

budget 

Expected next five 

year expenditures Comments 

USFS $0 USFS is not currently investing in the 

restoration 

WWBWC Habitat restoration $48,000/yr $240,000 Funded by OWEB ODFW John Day screen shop 

Fish screening and Passage 

$100,000/yr $500,000 New construction and O&M 

Totals - Walla Walla River Population $1,772,142/yr $9,160,000 
Appendix J 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

 J-1

APPENDIX J 

 

U.S. Forest Service Briefing Paper 

Fuels Treatment as an Action Contributing to Recovery 

of ESA-listed Anadromous Salmonids
Appendix J 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

J-2

Forest Service Briefing Paper

Subject Fuels treatment as an action contributing to recovery of ESA-listed anadromous 

salmonids 

Key Messages 

 Science-based assessments of the Columbia and Snake River basins have documented 

that both forest and aquatic ecosystems have undergone important changes from 

historical conditions. 

- Forests structure, composition, and patterns have been significantly altered, 

resulting in a higher risk of stand replacement fires. 

- Watersheds have been degraded, threatening the stability and persistence of native 

fishes -- including ESA-listed salmon and steelhead stocks. 

 Growing public recognition of degraded forest and aquatic ecosystem condition has 

resulted in policy and scientific debate over whether fuels treatments provide benefits to 

ESA-listed salmonid populations, or conversely, represent a risk of further degradation in 

watershed conditions on which they depend. 

 Context matters – any evaluation of trade-offs (benefits and risks) to ESA-listed 

salmonids from fuels treatments will be dependent on local conditions and successful 

integration of objectives. 

 Three primary elements must be integrated to meet both forest and aquatic system 

restoration objectives: 

- Conservation of key remnant aquatic and forested habitats with their associated 

native fish and wildlife populations, to serve as ‘building blocks’ for the future; 

- Restoration of degraded watersheds (both forest and aquatic conditions); and 

- Restoration of more natural patterns of forest habitat, including patterns of dead 

and down trees to reduce the landscape risk of large and damaging wildfires. 

 A multi-scale analysis –assessments at both the recovery domain and watershed scales--- 

is clearly an important process to evaluate tradeoffs between the benefits and risks of 

fuels treatment activities and assess their value in support of recovery of ESA-listed 

salmonids. Such analyses provide a framework and necessary geographic context and 

specificity to evaluate fuels treatments based on each recovery domain and watershed’s 

unique bio-physical characteristics. 

Reiman et al. (2000) provide a critical “first step” or “coarse filter” analytical framework to 

assist managers, policy-makers, and technicians in evaluating these trade-offs (benefits/risks). 

Based on their integrated analysis of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the Interior Columbia 

River Basin, each subbasin was assigned a general ‘theme’ and specific management 

recommendations are outlined regarding opportunities for fuels treatment actions and other 

restorative actions to maintain and restore the integrity of watershed and aquatic systems (Figure 

1). Additional, finer-scale watershed analyses will often be necessary to refine this approach in 

order to: 1) recognize commonality in management goals, opportunities, and conflicts; and 2) 
Appendix J 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

J-3

identify specific, integrated actions needed to support ESA-listed fishes. An example of such an 

analysis is displayed in Figures 2 and 3. 

Figure 1 (from Rieman et al. 2000) 

Figure 2 (from Rieman et al. 2007) 

Figure 3 (from Rieman et al. 2007) 

Where management objectives and conditions in forested and aquatic systems are in conflict, 

significant care and investment in analysis and management activities may be required. Placing 

subbasins into the appropriate theme, as described above, should be considered as an important 

first step in the prioritization of management resources expended in recovery. By focusing 

intensive restoration initially in areas of greatest potential ecological benefit and least risk, the 

skills and opportunity to move into more sensitive areas will likely emerge. 
Appendix J 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

J-4

This paper was summarized and sections excerpted from the Rieman et al. (2000) publication by L. 

Ulmer, B. Staab, D. Shively, and S. Woltering; USDA, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 

References: 

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, R.F. Thurow, P.F. Hessburg, and J.R.Sedell. 2000. Toward an 

Integrated Classification of Ecosystems: Defining Opportunities for Managing Fish and Forest Health. 

Environmental Management Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 425-444. 

Reiman, B, C. Luce, J. Dunham, A. Rosenberger, J. Buffington, M. Dare, H. Neville, P. Hessburg, A. 

Black, and C. Miller. 2007. Wildfire and Fish: Implications for Management. Presentation. USFS 

Watershed Seminar Series. 

Attachment A: Themes from Rieman (2000)

Theme 1: Wild and Minimally Roaded, Cold and Moist Forests – exhibit the least departure 

from historical conditions in either forest or aquatic ecosystems (roadless, wilderness) and 

provide the best opportunity to conserve elements of ecosystems most resembling natural or 

historical conditions 

Management Implications 

 Due to low departure from historical conditions (forested & aquatic), active 

restoration is a low priority relative to subbasins under other ‘themes’ 

 Primary management opportunity is to conserve existing conditions 

 Both managed and natural ignitions can play an important role in restoring forests 

Theme 2: Semi-Wild and Moderately-Roaded Areas – represent forest and aquatic conditions 

varying from fair to relatively healthy (blocks of wilderness, roadless) 

Management Implications 

 Conserve existing integrity of high-elevation and headwater areas 

 Actively restore more productive and lower risk conditions in middle and lower 

montane settings 
Appendix J 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

J-5

Theme 3: Mixed and Opposing Conditions – conditions in forest and aquatic ecosystems are 

not consistent. Forests within these subbasins have the highest departure in mean fire frequency 

and severity. Although aquatic systems are rated as favorable, in contrast to forested areas, 

strong salmonid populations are found in only an average number of subbasins but most fish 

communities are still dominated by native species. 

Management Implications 

 Maintaining and improving the productivity of aquatic ecosystems and restoring 

forests will likely require active management. 

 Although there may be opportunities to restore aquatic and forest conditions 

simultaneously, it may necessitate trade-offs. Aquatic systems within this theme are 

generally in good condition but overlap with poor forest conditions. Emphasis of 

forest treatments may pose unacceptable risks to watershed objectives 

 Potential conflict between management objectives support the need for more 

 detailed risk analysis (watershed scale) 

Theme 4: Mixed Conditions, Moist Forests – subbasins in this class exhibit moderate to high 

levels of departure from historical conditions in both forest and aquatic systems due to extensive 

land management and high road densities. The need for restoration in both systems, and the 

productive nature of the forests, implies both risks and opportunities for management. 

Management Implications 

 There is a need to restore both. 

 As there are productive forests, and areas of both productive aquatic habitat and intact 

fish communities, these subbasins may be priorities for investments in restoration.

 Due to the extensive and, potentially surplus road networks, opportunities for active 

forest restoration is high. Removal of roads after forest restoration work is completed 

could lead to improved watershed conditions where sediment and fragmentation is 

limiting recovery. 

 The presence of large areas of moist forest types within this theme expands 

management opportunities. Historically, mixed and lethal fire regimes were 

dominant suggesting large and intense disturbance events with long recovery periods

 Recommend focused and intense restoration actions over short time periods (5-10 

years) with longer time periods for recovery (30-50 years). This restoration strategy 

may minimize the need for extensive and permanent road networks and enable largescale restoration with less funding.

Theme 5: Mixed Condition, Dry Forest – both forest and aquatic systems are similar to 

subbasins under Theme 4 (departure from historical conditions, high road densities, extensive 

land management) but dry forest types are dominant. Theme 5 differs from Theme 4 in that 

forests are less productive, historical fire regimes were primary non-lethal and mixed and had 

frequent fire return intervals.
Appendix J 

Oregon Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan 

J-6

Management Implications 

 Restoration needs similar to those recommended under Theme 4 but active restoration 

will require more frequent entry and a higher level of maintenance for a more 

extensive road network. 

 Economic benefits from logging (dry forest types) are lower than under Theme 4 and 

probably will not support low-impact operations (e.g., helicopter logging) as often as 

in more productive moist forest types. This will in turn require that existing road 

networks remain in place, long-term to derive any economic benefit. 

 Although the same opportunities for aquatic habitat restoration are found as under 

Theme 4 (removal of unnecessary roads), forest restoration should make use of 

existing roads, rather than construct new ones, and attempt to eliminate roads limiting 

watershed integrity. 

Theme 6: Poor Conditions – both forest and aquatic systems are in poor condition. For aquatic 

systems, they are in a degraded condition with remaining populations of native fishes often 

isolated and fragmented. Fragmentation of habitat is most common in lower elevation lands 

adjoining forested areas. For forest systems, the composition and degree of departure from 

historical conditions is similar to Theme 5. In contrast, subbasins under Theme 6 comprise a 

more diverse mix of dry and moist forest conditions with fire frequency changes also not as 

pronounced. Road densities are also lower than under Theme 4 or 5. 

Management Implications 

 Limited opportunity for restoration of functional aquatic networks 

 Conserve remnant habitats of native fishes and maintain high water quality 

 Forest restoration activities would present low risk to remaining critical habitat 

providing these are sited appropriately