ESA Recovery Plan for

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, 

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, 

Columbia River Chum Salmon, and 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead

Prepared by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Region

June 2013
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ii
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

iii

Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment 

or requirement that any federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in 

excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the 

Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 United States Code (USC) 1341, or any other law or regulation. 

Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new information, 

changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions.

With respect to the Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead recovery plan, where 

areas of disagreement arose between a management unit plan and the species (i.e., ESU 

or DPS-level) plan, NMFS worked with the relevant parties to resolve the differences 

and in a few cases, identified in the species plan, decided not to incorporate the disputed 

material into the species plan.

Although an ESA recovery plan is not a regulatory document with the force of law, it 

provides important context for NMFS decisions under ESA section 7(a). The procedures 

for the section 7 consultation process are described in 50 Code of Federal Regulations 

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

recovery plan.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

iv
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

v

Acknowledgements

The Lower Columbia River ESA Recovery Plan represents the dedicated effort of 

numerous people over many years. The National Marine Fisheries Service would like to 

thank the individuals, organizations, and agencies listed below (alphabetically) for their 

contributions to this plan. Special thanks go to the members of the Lower Columbia 

Recovery Plan Steering Committee and the management unit recovery planning 

organizations for their input, support, and guidance throughout this recovery planning 

process. 

Recovery Plan Authors

Patty Dornbusch – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Ann Sihler – Ann Sihler Writing and Editing

NMFS Contributors and Reviewers 

Brian Allee – formerly National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Robert Anderson – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Jeff Bash – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Laurie Beale – NOAA Office of the General Counsel

Nora Berwick - National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Craig Busack – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Mark Chilcote – formerly National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Tom Cooney – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

David Crouse – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Donna Darm – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Michelle Day – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Peter Dygert– National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Elizabeth Gaar – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Ritchie Graves – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Dan Guy – formerly National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Rob Jones – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Lynne Krasnow – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Jeff Lockwood - National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Paul McElhany – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Ben Meyer – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Larissa Plants – National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources

Scott Rumsey – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Alix Smith – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Chris Toole – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Rich Turner – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Robert Walton – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Amilee Wilson – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Other Contributors and Reviewers 

Ray Beamesderfer – Cramer Fish Sciences
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

vi

Jeanette Burkhardt – Yakama Nation

Catherine Corbett – Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership

Members of the Columbia Basin Federal Caucus

Pat Frazier – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Kevin Goodson – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Bernadette Graham Hudson – Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

Members of the Lower Columbia River Plan Steering Committee

Rick Mogren – Federal Caucus Program Coordinator

Dan Rawding – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Jeff Rodgers – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Tom Stahl – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Lower Columbia Recovery Plan Steering Committee Members

Jim Brick – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Jeff Breckel – Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

Donna Darm – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Patty Dornbusch – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region 

Megan Duffy – Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office

Suzanne Knapp – formerly Oregon Governor’s Natural Resource Office

Sara Laborde – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Deb Marriott – Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership

Bruce McIntosh – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Phil Miller – formerly Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office

Rick Mogren – facilitator

Guy Norman – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Bill Sharp – Yakama Nation

Tom Stahl – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Robert Walton – National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region

Lower Columbia Management Unit Organizations

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership

Oregon Lower Columbia Stakeholder Team

Washington Gorge Implementation Team

Member Agencies of the Columbia Basin Federal Caucus

Bonneville Power Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Geological Survey
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

vii

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................xix

Glossary....................................................................................................................................xxiii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................ES-1

1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 ESA Requirements .....................................................................................................1-3

1.2 How NMFS Intends to Use the Plan .......................................................................1-4

1.3 Geographic Setting.....................................................................................................1-4

1.3.1 Topography and Ecological Zones .............................................................1-5

1.3.2 Climate............................................................................................................1-6

1.3.3 Land Uses and Economy..............................................................................1-7

1.3.4 Human Population........................................................................................1-7

1.4 Species Covered by the Plan.....................................................................................1-8

1.4.1 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU................................................1-8

1.4.2 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU..........................................1-8

1.4.3 Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU...........................................................1-9

1.4.4 Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS ......................................................1-9

1.5 Context of Plan Development ................................................................................1-10

1.5.1 Recovery Domains and Technical Recovery Teams ..............................1-11

1.5.2 Management Units and Integration of Management Unit Plans .........1-13

1.5.2.1 Washington Management Unit Recovery Plan................................1-14

1.5.2.2 White Salmon Management Unit Recovery Plan ............................1-15

1.5.2.3 Oregon Lower Columbia Management Unit Recovery Plan .........1-16

1.5.2.4 Relationship between Management Unit Plans and

ESU-Level Plan......................................................................................1-16

1.5.3 Challenges of Bi-State Coordination and Multiple 

Management Units......................................................................................1-16

1.5.4 Challenges of Addressing Multiple ESUs/DPSs in a Single Recovery 

Plan................................................................................................................1-18

1.5.5 Relationship to Other Processes................................................................1-19

1.5.5.1 Willamette-Lower Columbia ESA Executive Committee...............1-19

1.5.5.2 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Subbasin Plans.......1-19

1.5.5.3 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and 2010 Supplement ..................1-20

1.5.5.4 Columbia River Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG).........1-21

1.5.5.5 State-Level Planning Processes...........................................................1-22

1.6 Tribal Treaty and Trust Responsibilities...............................................................1-24

2. Defining Viability for Salmon and Steelhead ..............................................................2-1

2.1 ESU/DPS Biological Structure .................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Evolutionarily Significant Units and Distinct Population Segments ....2-2

2.1.2 Strata ...............................................................................................................2-2

2.1.3 Independent Populations.............................................................................2-3

2.2 Viable Salmonid Populations ...................................................................................2-3
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

viii

2.2.1 Abundance and Productivity ......................................................................2-3

2.2.2 Spatial Structure and Diversity...................................................................2-4

2.3 Critical Habitat ...........................................................................................................2-5

2.4 WLC TRT Biological Viability Criteria....................................................................2-7

2.4.1 Background ....................................................................................................2-7

2.4.2 Viability Criteria Technical Reports ...........................................................2-8

2.4.3 TRT ESU-Level Viability Criteria................................................................2-9

2.4.3.1 Defining ESU-Level Viability................................................................2-9

2.4.3.2 ESU-Level Recovery Strategy Guidance .............................................2-9

2.4.4 TRT Stratum-Level Viability Criteria .......................................................2-10

2.4.4.1 Criterion 1: How Many Populations in the Stratum Should Be 

Viable? ....................................................................................................2-10

2.4.4.2 Criterion 2: Which Populations in the Stratum Should 

Be Viable?...............................................................................................2-11

2.4.5 TRT Population-Level Viability Criteria..................................................2-12

2.4.6 Population Size ............................................................................................2-14

2.5 WLC TRT Approach to Assessing Population Status.........................................2-15

3. Recovery Goals and Delisting Criteria ...........................................................................3-1

3.1 Management Unit Plan Recovery Goals .................................................................3-2

3.1.1 Plan Purposes and Broad Sense Recovery Goals .....................................3-2

3.1.1.1 Washington Management Unit Recovery Plan..................................3-2

3.1.1.2 Oregon Lower Columbia Management Unit Recovery Plan ...........3-3

3.1.1.3 White Salmon Management Unit Recovery Plan ..............................3-4

3.1.2 Management Unit Plan Biological Recovery Goals .................................3-4

3.1.3 Recovery Scenarios for ESU/DPS...............................................................3-4

3.2 NMFS Delisting Criteria............................................................................................3-8

3.2.1 Biological Criteria..........................................................................................3-8

3.2.2 Threats Criteria............................................................................................3-10

3.2.3 Delisting Criteria Conclusion....................................................................3-14

3.3 Achieving Broad Sense Goals after Delisting.......................................................3-15

4. Regional Limiting Factors and Strategies ......................................................................4-1

4.1 Tributary Habitat........................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors and Threats ......................................4-2

4.1.2 Regional Strategy for Tributary Habitat....................................................4-5

4.2 Estuary Habitat...........................................................................................................4-9

4.2.1 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors and Threats........................................4-10

4.2.2 Regional Strategy for Estuary Habitat .....................................................4-12

4.3 Hydropower..............................................................................................................4-13

4.3.1 Hydropower Limiting Factors and Threats................................................4-14

4.3.1.1 Reservoir-Related or Structural Impacts ...........................................4-14

4.3.1.2 Flow-Related Impacts ..........................................................................4-15

4.3.2 Regional Hydropower Strategy ...................................................................4-17

4.4 Hatcheries..................................................................................................................4-19

4.4.1 Hatchery Limiting Factors and Threats ...................................................4-21

4.4.1.1 Genetic Effects.......................................................................................4-21

4.4.1.2 Competition (Density-Dependent Mortality) and Predation.........4-22

4.4.1.3 Other Effects: Disease Transmission, Passage Blockages, Water 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ix

Withdrawals, and Mixed Stock Harvest ...........................................4-23

4.4.2 Regional Hatchery Strategy.......................................................................4-23

4.5 Harvest.......................................................................................................................4-26

4.5.1 Harvest Limiting Factors and Threats .....................................................4-30

4.5.1.1 Harvest Mortality .................................................................................4-30

4.5.1.2 Selection for Size, Age, Distribution, or Timing...............................4-30

4.5.1.3 Nutrient Supply and Carrying Capacity...........................................4-31

4.5.2 Regional Harvest Strategy .........................................................................4-31

4.6 Ecological Interactions.............................................................................................4-33

4.6.1 Limiting Factors and Threats Related to Ecological Interactions.........4-33

4.6.1.1 Predation................................................................................................4-34

4.6.1.2 Competition...........................................................................................4-35

4.6.1.3 Disease Transfer....................................................................................4-37

4.6.2 Regional Ecological Interactions Strategy ...............................................4-37

4.6.3 Effects of Recovery Actions on Other Species.........................................4-37

4.6.3.1 Bull Trout...............................................................................................4-40

4.6.3.2 Eulachon.................................................................................................4-41

4.6.3.3 Green Sturgeon .....................................................................................4-41

4.6.3.4 Southern Resident Killer Whale .........................................................4-42

4.6.3.5 Stellar Sea Lion......................................................................................4-43

4.7 Climate Change ........................................................................................................4-43

4.7.1 Climate Change Limiting Factors and Threats .......................................4-43

4.7.1.1 Information Sources .............................................................................4-44

4.7.1.2 Effects of Climate Change on LCR Salmon and Steelhead.............4-45

4.7.2 Regional Climate Change Strategy...........................................................4-52

4.7.2.1 Mitigation Strategy...............................................................................4-52

4.7.2.2 Adaptation Strategy .............................................................................4-52

4.8 Human Population Growth....................................................................................4-56

4.8.1 Limiting Factors and Threats Related to Human 

Population Growth .....................................................................................4-56

4.8.2 Regional Strategy for Human Population Growth ................................4-57

4.9 Summary ...................................................................................................................4-59

5. Overall Approach to Species Recovery Analyses .........................................................5-1

5.1 Baseline Population Status........................................................................................5-2

5.1.1 Oregon Approach to Assessing Baseline Status .......................................5-3

5.1.2 Washington Approach to Assessing Baseline Status...............................5-4

5.1.3 White Salmon Approach to Assessing Baseline Status ...........................5-5

5.1.4 Differences in Status Assessment Methods...............................................5-5

5.2 Target Status ...............................................................................................................5-6

5.2.1 Recovery Scenario .........................................................................................5-6

5.2.2 Conservation Gaps........................................................................................5-6

5.3 Limiting Factors and Threats....................................................................................5-7

5.4 NMFS Limiting Factors Crosswalk..........................................................................5-9

5.5 Baseline Threat Impacts.............................................................................................5-9

5.5.1 Oregon Approach to Quantifying Baseline Threat Impacts .................5-10

5.5.2 Washington Approach to Quantifying Baseline Threat Impacts .........5-11

5.5.3 White Salmon Approach to Quantifying Baseline Threat Impacts .....5-12

5.6 Threat Reduction Scenarios ....................................................................................5-12
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

x

5.6.1 Oregon’s Threat Reduction Scenarios ......................................................5-13

5.6.2 Washington’s Threat Reduction Scenarios and 

Interim Benchmarks....................................................................................5-14

5.6.3 White Salmon Threat Reduction Scenarios .............................................5-14

5.7 Recovery Strategies and Actions............................................................................5-15

5.7.1 Oregon Approach to Developing Recovery Strategies and Actions ...5-15

5.7.2 Washington Approach to Developing Recovery Strategies 

and Actions ..................................................................................................5-16

5.7.3 White Salmon Approach to Developing Recovery Strategies 

and Actions ..................................................................................................5-17

5.8 Analysis of Actions ..................................................................................................5-17

5.9 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation..................................................................5-19

5.10 NMFS 2011 Status Assessments .............................................................................5-20

6. Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon.............................................................................6-1

6.1 Coho Salmon Biological Background......................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Coho Salmon Life History and Habitat .....................................................6-1

6.1.2 Historical Distribution and Population Structure of LCR 

Coho Salmon..................................................................................................6-3

6.2 Baseline Population Status of LCR Coho Salmon .................................................6-5

6.3 Target Status and Conservation Gaps for Coho Salmon Populations................6-7

6.4 Limiting Factors and Threats for LCR Coho Salmon..........................................6-12

6.4.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors ..........................................................6-16

6.4.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors..............................................................6-18

6.4.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors ..................................................................6-19

6.4.4 Harvest Limiting Factors............................................................................6-20

6.4.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors ..........................................................6-21

6.4.6 Predation Limiting Factors ........................................................................6-21

6.5 Baseline Threat Impacts and Reduction Targets .................................................6-22

6.6 ESU Recovery Strategy for LCR Coho Salmon ....................................................6-29

6.6.1 Strategy Summary.......................................................................................6-29

6.6.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy.........................................................................6-30

6.6.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy ............................................................................6-33

6.6.4 Hydropower Strategy.................................................................................6-34

6.6.5 Harvest Strategy..........................................................................................6-37

6.6.6 Hatchery Strategy........................................................................................6-39

6.6.7 Predation Strategy.......................................................................................6-41

6.6.8 Critical Uncertainties ..................................................................................6-41

6.7 Delisting Criteria Conclusion for LCR Coho Salmon .........................................6-42

7. Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon.......................................................................7-1

7.1 Chinook Salmon Biological Background ................................................................7-1

7.1.1 Life History and Habitat ..............................................................................7-1

7.1.1.1 Spring Chinook Salmon Life History ..................................................7-1

7.1.1.2 Fall Chinook (“Tule”) Salmon Life History ........................................7-3

7.1.1.3 Late-Fall (“Bright”) Chinook Salmon Life History............................7-3

7.1.2 Historical Distribution and Population Structure of LCR Chinook

Salmon ............................................................................................................7-4

7.2 Baseline Population Status of LCR Chinook Salmon............................................7-6
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xi

7.2.1 Baseline Status of LCR Spring Chinook Salmon ......................................7-7

7.2.2 Baseline Status of LCR Tule Fall Chinook Salmon...................................7-8

7.2.3 Baseline Status of LCR Late-Fall (Bright) Chinook Salmon..................7-11

7.3 Target Status and Conservation Gaps for Chinook Salmon Populations........7-12

7.4 Spring Chinook Salmon Analysis: Limiting Factors, Threat Reductions, and 

Recovery Strategies ..................................................................................................7-19

7.4.1 Spring Chinook Limiting Factors..............................................................7-19

7.4.1.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors....................................................7-23

7.4.1.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors .......................................................7-25

7.4.1.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors............................................................7-26

7.4.1.4 Harvest Limiting Factors .....................................................................7-27

7.4.1.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors....................................................7-28

7.4.1.6 Predation Limiting Factors..................................................................7-28

7.4.2 Spring Chinook Salmon Baseline Threat Impacts and Threat Reduction 

Targets...........................................................................................................7-28

7.4.3 Spring Chinook Salmon Recovery Strategy ............................................7-34

7.4.3.1 Strategy Summary ................................................................................7-34

7.4.3.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy ..................................................................7-35

7.4.3.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy......................................................................7-37

7.4.3.4 Hydropower Strategy ..........................................................................7-38

7.4.3.5 Harvest Strategy ...................................................................................7-41

7.4.3.6 Hatchery Strategy .................................................................................7-42

7.4.3.7 Predation Strategy ................................................................................7-46

7.4.3.8 Critical Uncertainties............................................................................7-46

7.5 Fall Chinook Salmon Analysis: Limiting Factors, Threat Reductions, and 

Recovery Strategies ..................................................................................................7-48

7.5.1 Fall Chinook Limiting Factors...................................................................7-48

7.5.1.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors....................................................7-53

7.5.1.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors .......................................................7-55

7.5.1.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors............................................................7-56

7.5.1.4 Harvest Limiting Factors .....................................................................7-57

7.5.1.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors....................................................7-57

7.5.1.6 Predation Limiting Factors..................................................................7-58

7.5.2 Fall Chinook Salmon Baseline Threat Impacts and 

Reduction Targets .......................................................................................7-58

7.5.3 Fall Chinook Salmon Recovery Strategy .................................................7-64

7.5.3.1 Strategy Summary ................................................................................7-64

7.5.3.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy ..................................................................7-66

7.5.3.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy......................................................................7-69

7.5.3.4 Hydropower Strategy ..........................................................................7-70

7.5.3.5 Harvest Strategy ...................................................................................7-73

7.5.3.6 Hatchery Strategy .................................................................................7-75

7.5.3.7 Predation Strategy ................................................................................7-78

7.5.3.8 Critical Uncertainties............................................................................7-78

7.6 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Analysis: Limiting Factors, Threat Reductions, and 

Recovery Strategies ..................................................................................................7-79

7.6.1 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Limiting Factors ...........................................7-79

7.6.1.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors....................................................7-82
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xii

7.6.1.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors .......................................................7-83

7.6.1.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors............................................................7-84

7.6.1.4 Harvest Limiting Factors .....................................................................7-84

7.6.1.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors....................................................7-84

7.6.1.6 Predation Limiting Factors..................................................................7-85

7.6.2 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Baseline Threat Impacts and Reduction 

Targets...........................................................................................................7-85

7.6.3 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Recovery Strategy ........................................7-89

7.6.3.1 Strategy Summary ................................................................................7-89

7.6.3.2 Tributary and Estuarine Habitat Strategy.........................................7-89

7.6.3.3 Hydropower Strategy ..........................................................................7-89

7.6.3.4 Harvest Strategy ...................................................................................7-90

7.6.3.5 Hatchery Strategy .................................................................................7-90

7.6.3.6 Predation Strategy ................................................................................7-90

7.6.3.7 Critical Uncertainties............................................................................7-90

7.7 Delisting Criteria Conclusion for LCR Chinook Salmon ...................................7-91

8. Columbia River Chum Salmon........................................................................................8-1

8.1 Chum Salmon Biological Background ....................................................................8-1

8.1.1 Chum Salmon Life History and Habitat....................................................8-1

8.1.2 Historical Distribution and Population Structure of Columbia River 

Chum Salmon ................................................................................................8-2

8.2 Baseline Population Status of Columbia River Chum Salmon............................8-4

8.3 Target Status and Conservation Gaps for Columbia River Chum Salmon .......8-5

8.4 Limiting Factors and Threats for Columbia River Chum Salmon ....................8-10

8.4.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors ..........................................................8-14

8.4.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors..............................................................8-16

8.4.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors ..................................................................8-17

8.4.4 Harvest Limiting Factors............................................................................8-17

8.4.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors ..........................................................8-18

8.4.6 Predation Limiting Factors ........................................................................8-18

8.5 Baseline Threat Impacts and Reduction Targets .................................................8-19

8.6 ESU Recovery Strategy for Columbia River Chum Salmon ..............................8-24

8.6.1 Strategy Summary.......................................................................................8-24

8.6.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy.........................................................................8-25

8.6.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy ............................................................................8-29

8.6.4 Hydropower Strategy.................................................................................8-30

8.6.5 Harvest Strategy..........................................................................................8-31

8.6.6 Hatchery Strategy........................................................................................8-32

8.6.7 Predation Strategy.......................................................................................8-33

8.6.8 Critical Uncertainties ..................................................................................8-33

8.7 Delisting Criteria Conclusion for Columbia River Chum Salmon ...................8-35

9. Lower Columbia River Steelhead....................................................................................9-1

9.1 Steelhead Biological Background.............................................................................9-1

9.1.1 Steelhead Life History and Habitat ............................................................9-1

9.1.2 Historical Distribution and Population Structure of LCR Steelhead ....9-4

9.2 Baseline Population Status of LCR Steelhead ........................................................9-6

9.2.1 Baseline Status of LCR Summer Steelhead................................................9-6
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xiii

9.2.2 Baseline Status of LCR Winter Steelhead ..................................................9-7

9.3 Target Status and Conservation Gaps for Steelhead Populations ......................9-9

9.4 Limiting Factors and Threats for LCR Steelhead.................................................9-15

9.4.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors ..........................................................9-22

9.4.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors..............................................................9-23

9.4.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors ..................................................................9-24

9.4.4 Harvest Limiting Factors............................................................................9-25

9.4.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors ..........................................................9-26

9.4.6 Predation ......................................................................................................9-27

9.5 Baseline Threat Impacts and Threat Reduction Targets.....................................9-27

9.6 DPS Recovery Strategy for LCR Steelhead...........................................................9-34

9.6.1 Strategy Summary.......................................................................................9-34

9.6.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy.........................................................................9-36

9.6.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy ............................................................................9-39

9.6.4 Hydropower Strategy.................................................................................9-39

9.6.5 Harvest Strategy..........................................................................................9-42

9.6.6 Hatchery Strategy........................................................................................9-43

9.6.7 Predation Strategy.......................................................................................9-44

9.6.8 Critical Uncertainties ..................................................................................9-44

9.7 Delisting Criteria Conclusion for LCR Steelhead................................................9-45

10. Adaptive Management and Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation.......................10-1

10.1 Overview of Adaptive Management and RME Needs.......................................10-1

10.2 Guidance for Adaptive Management and RME..................................................10-3

10.2.1 Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead 

Recovery Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance...............10-3

10.2.2 Guidance for Monitoring Recovery of Pacific Northwest Salmon and 

Steelhead ...................................................................................................10-5

10.2.3 Other RME Guidance ..............................................................................10-7

10.2.3.1 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 

2009 Amendments ..............................................................................10-7

10.2.3.2 Recommendation for Implementing RME for the 2008 NOAA 

Fisheries FCRPS Biological Opinion ................................................10-7

10.2.3.3 Salmon Monitoring Advisor..............................................................10-8

10.3 RME Plans for the Washington, Oregon, and White Salmon Management Unit 

Plans ...........................................................................................................................10-8

10.3.1 Washington Management Unit..............................................................10-8

10.3.1.1 Biological Status Monitoring.............................................................10-9

10.3.1.2 Habitat Status Monitoring .................................................................10-9

10.3.1.3 Implementation and Compliance Monitoring................................10-9

10.3.1.4 Action Effectiveness Monitoring ......................................................10-9

10.3.1.5 Research Needs .................................................................................10-10

10.3.1.6 Data Management.............................................................................10-11

10.3.1.7 Programmatic Evaluation................................................................10-11

10.3.2 Oregon Management Unit....................................................................10-11

10.3.2.1 Biological Status Monitoring...........................................................10-11

10.3.2.2 Monitoring Related to Listing Factors ...........................................10-12

10.3.3 White Salmon Management Unit ........................................................10-14

10.4 Estuary Module RME ............................................................................................10-14
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xiv

10.5 RME in Biological Opinions and Records of Decision......................................10-15

10.6 Regional Coordination Efforts..............................................................................10-15

10.6.1 Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (ASMS) .....................10-17

10.6.2 PNAMP Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Demonstration 

Project ......................................................................................................10-19

10.7 Additional Needs for RME in the Lower Columbia .........................................10-19

10.7.1 Integrated RME Program......................................................................10-20

10.7.2 Data Management and Integration .....................................................10-20

10.8 Research on Critical Uncertainties.......................................................................10-20

10.9 RME and ESA 5-Year Status Reviews .................................................................10-21

11. Implementation and Coordination................................................................................11-1

11.1 NMFS’ Vision for Recovery Implementation.......................................................11-1

11.2 Prioritizing Recovery Actions ................................................................................11-2

11.2.1 Prioritizing Populations ..........................................................................11-2

11.2.2 Geographic Priorities...............................................................................11-3

11.2.3 Prioritizing Actions..................................................................................11-4

11.3 Organizational Structure and Implementation Roles and Responsibilities ....11-5

11.3.1 Subdomain Level: Columbia River Plan Implementation Steering 

Committee.................................................................................................11-6

11.3.1.1 Organization/Membership ...............................................................11-7

11.3.1.2 Operations...........................................................................................11-7

11.3.1.3 Areas of Focus ....................................................................................11-7

11.3.2 Management Unit Level .........................................................................11-9

11.3.2.1 Oregon ...............................................................................................11-10

11.3.2.2 Washington.......................................................................................11-13

11.3.2.3 White Salmon ...................................................................................11-16

11.3.3 NMFS’ Role .............................................................................................11-16

11.3.3.1 ESA Responsibilities ........................................................................11-17

11.3.3.2 LC Steering Committee Convening Partner ................................11-17

11.3.4 Columbia River Estuary........................................................................11-17

11.4 Implementation Time Frames ..............................................................................11-18

11.4.1 Oregon Management Unit Plan...........................................................11-18

11.4.2 Washington Management Unit Plan...................................................11-19

11.4.3 White Salmon Management Unit Plan ...............................................11-19

11.4.4 Columbia River Estuary Recovery Plan Module ..............................11-19

11.5 NMFS Time Frame .................................................................................................11-20

12. Site-Specific Management Actions and Cost Estimates............................................12-1

12.1 Site-Specific Management Actions ........................................................................12-1

12.1.1 Washington Management Unit Plan.....................................................12-6

12.1.2 Oregon Management Unit Plan.............................................................12-6

12.1.3 White Salmon Management Unit Plan .................................................12-7

12.1.4 Estuary Module........................................................................................12-8

12.2 Cost Estimates...........................................................................................................12-8

12.2.1 Washington Management Unit Plan...................................................12-10

12.2.2 Oregon Management Unit Plan...........................................................12-11

12.2.3 White Salmon Management Unit Plan ...............................................12-12

12.2.4 Estuary Module......................................................................................12-13
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xv

12.3 Time Estimate .........................................................................................................12-14

13. References...........................................................................................................................13-1

Appendices

A Oregon Management Unit Plan

(see http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.asp)

B Washington Management Unit Plan

(see http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/Recovery%20Plans/RP%20Frontpage.htm)

C White Salmon Management Unit Plan (see 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_pla

nning_and_implementation/lower_columbia_river/lower_columbia_river_reco

very_plan_for_salmon_steelhead.html)

D Estuary Recovery Plan Module (see 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_pla

nning_and_implementation/recovery_plans_supporting_documents.html)

E Hydropower Module (see 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_pla

nning_and_implementation/recovery_plans_supporting_documents.html)

F Ecological Interactions White Paper

G Habitat Concerns Data Dictionary

H Limiting Factors Crosswalk and Methodology 

Tables

ES-1 Population-Level Probability of Persistence, Extinction Risk, and Status .........ES-5

ES-2 Summary of Cost Estimates ......................................................................................ES-9

ES-3 Subbasins Targeted to Support Three or More Primary Populations ..............ES-12

ES-4 Baseline and Target Status of LCR Coho Salmon Populations..........................ES-17

ES-5 Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Coho Salmon during 

Baseline Period..........................................................................................................ES-19

ES-6 Baseline and Target Status of LCR Chinook Salmon Populations ....................ES-21

ES-7 Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Spring Chinook Salmon during 

Baseline Period..........................................................................................................ES-23

ES-8 Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Fall Chinook Salmon during 

Baseline Period..........................................................................................................ES-25

ES-9 Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Late-fall Chinook Salmon during 

Baseline Period..........................................................................................................ES-27

ES-10 Baseline and Target Status of Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations ....ES-28

ES-11 Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Chum Salmon during 

Baseline Period..........................................................................................................ES-29
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xvi

ES-12 Baseline and Target Status of LCR Steelhead Populations.................................ES-32

ES-13 Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Winter Steelhead during 

Baseline Period..........................................................................................................ES-34

ES-14 Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Summer Steelhead 

during Baseline Period.............................................................................................ES-34

1-1 Lower Columbia Subbasins, by State and Ecological Zone ....................................1-6

2-1 Population Viability Categories, Corresponding to 100-Year Extinction Risk...2-11

2-2 Stratum-Level Extinction Risk Associated with Population Risk ........................2-11

2-3 Viability Criteria and Guidelines from the Willamette-Lower Columbia Technical 

Recovery Team.............................................................................................................2-13

2-4 Population Scores and Corresponding Probability of 

Persistence (or Extinction)..........................................................................................2-16

3-1 Recovery Scenarios for LCR Chinook, Columbia River Chum, LCR Steelhead, 

and LCR Coho................................................................................................................3-6

4-1 Common Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors and Threats ....................................4-4

4-2 Representative Actions to Address Limiting Factors Affecting 

Most Populations...........................................................................................................4-6

4-3 Subbasins Targeted to Support Three or More Primary Populations ...................4-8

4-4 Estimated Average Survival Rates of Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead 

Passing Bonneville Dam .............................................................................................4-18

4-5 Projected Survival Improvements for Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead 

from Actions to Reduce Predation in the Estuary ..................................................4-19

4-6 Hatchery Releases of Salmon and Steelhead in the Lower Columbia 

River, 2011 ....................................................................................................................4-20

4-7 Fisheries Affecting Lower Columbia ESUs .............................................................4-28

4-8 Estimated Harvest Rates on Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Before 

and After Listing..........................................................................................................4-29

4-9 Federally Listed Fish and Wildlife Species in the Lower Columbia Recovery 

Planning Area ..............................................................................................................4-40

4-10 Summary of Expected Climate Effects on Pacific Northwest ESUs.....................4-50

4-11 Strategies and Representative Actions to Address Climate Change Impacts ....4-54

4-12 Representative Actions and Strategies to Mitigate for Human 

Population Growth......................................................................................................4-58

5-1 Population Scores and Corresponding Probability of Persistence 

(or Extinction).................................................................................................................5-3

5-2 Key Differences in Status Assessment Methodologies ............................................5-6

6-1 Key Habitat for Coho Salmon, by Life Stage.............................................................6-2

6-2 Historical LCR Coho Salmon Populations.................................................................6-4

6-3 Artificial Propagation Programs for LCR Coho Salmon .........................................6-5

6-4 Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR Coho Salmon 

Populations...................................................................................................................6-10

6-5 Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Coho Salmon: StratumLevel Summary............................................................................................................6-13

6-6 Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets 

Consistent with Recovery of LCR Coho Salmon Populations .............................6-26

6-7 Coho Salmon Recovery Scenario Scores Relative to WLC TRT’s 

Viability Criteria ..........................................................................................................6-43

7-1 Key Habitat for Fall and Spring Chinook Salmon, by Life Stage ...........................7-2
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xvii

7-2 Historical LCR Chinook Salmon Populations ...........................................................7-5

7-3 Artificial Propagation Programs Included in the LCR Chinook Salmon ESU .....7-6

7-4 Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR Chinook 

Salmon Populations ....................................................................................................7-16

7-5 Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Spring Chinook Salmon: 

Stratum-Level Summary ............................................................................................7-20

7-6 Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets 

Consistent with Recovery of LCR Spring Chinook Salmon Populations ...........7-32

7-7 Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Fall Chinook Salmon: 

Stratum-Level Summary ............................................................................................7-50

7-8 Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets 

Consistent with Recovery of LCR Fall Chinook Salmon Populations ................7-62

7-9 Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Late-Fall Chinook Salmon: 

Stratum-Level Summary ............................................................................................7-81

7-10 Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets 

Consistent with Recovery of LCR Late-fall Chinook Salmon Populations ........7-88

7-11 LCR Chinook Salmon Recovery Scenario Scores Relative to WLC TRT Viability 

Criteria...........................................................................................................................7-92

8-1 Historical Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations ...........................................8-3

8-2 Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of Columbia River 

Chum Salmon Populations ..........................................................................................8-8

8-3 Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting Columbia River Chum Salmon: 

Stratum-Level Summary ...........................................................................................8-12

8-4 Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threat, and Impact Reduction Targets 

Consistent with Recovery of Columbia River Chum Salmon (Washington 

Populations Only)........................................................................................................8-22

8-5 Chum Salmon Recovery Scenario Scores Relative to WLC TRT’s 

Viability Criteria ..........................................................................................................8-36

9-1 Key Habitat for Steelhead, by Life Stage ...................................................................9-3

9-2 Historical LCR Steelhead Populations .......................................................................9-5

9-3 Artificial Propagation Programs for LCR Steelhead ................................................9-6

9-4 Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR 

Steelhead Populations.................................................................................................9-12

9-5 Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Winter Steelhead: StratumLevel Summary............................................................................................................9-16

9-6 Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Summer Steelhead: 

Stratum-Level Summary ............................................................................................9-19

9-7 Impacts of Potentially Manageable Impacts of Threats and Impact Reduction 

Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Steelhead Populations ......................9-31

9-8 Steelhead Recovery Scenario Scores Relative to WLC TRT Viability Criteria....9-46

12-1 Representative Recovery Actions..............................................................................12-2

12-2 Summary of Cost Estimates ....................................................................................12-10

Figures

ES-1 Conservation Gaps for LCR Coho Salmon Populations ....................................ES-18

ES-2 Conservation Gaps for LCR Spring Chinook Salmon Populations .................ES-22

ES-3 Conservation Gaps for LCR Fall and Late-Fall Chinook 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xviii

Salmon Populations ................................................................................................ES-22

ES-4 Conservation Gaps for Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations ..............ES-29

ES-5 Conservation Gaps for LCR Winter Steelhead Populations .............................ES-33

ES-6 Conservation Gaps for LCR Summer Steelhead Populations ...........................ES-33

1-1 NMFS Northwest Region Recovery Domains.........................................................1-12

1-2 Management Units of the Willamette-Lower Columbia Recovery Domain ......1-14

2-1 Hierarchical Levels of Salmonid Species Structure for ESU/DPS 

Recovery Planning.........................................................................................................2-2

4-1 Changes in Annual Columbia River Flow...............................................................4-16

4-2 Projected Average Monthly Stream Flow (cfs) for the White Salmon and Kalama 

Rivers and the Mainstem Columbia River at Bonneville Dam.............................4-46

4-3 Preliminary Maps of Predicted Hydrologic Regime for 1970-1999 

and 2070-2099...............................................................................................................4-47

5-1 Sample “Diamond Graph” Showing Populations with Different Distributions of 

Extinction Risk (Inverse of Persistence Probability).................................................5-4

6-1 Life Cycle of Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon .................................................6-2

6-2 Baseline Status of Historical LCR Coho Salmon Populations ................................6-7

6-3 Conservation Gaps for LCR Coho Salmon Populations: Difference between 

Baseline and Target Status ...........................................................................................6-9

7-1 Life Cycle of Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon...............................7-2

7-2 Life Cycle of Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon ....................................7-4

7-3 Baseline Status of Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook 

Salmon Populations ......................................................................................................7-8

7-4 Baseline Status of Lower Columbia River Fall (Tule) Chinook Salmon 

Populations, per Management Unit Plans ...............................................................7-11

7-5 Baseline Status of Columbia River Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Populations.......7-12

7-6 Conservation Gaps for LCR Spring Chinook Salmon Populations: Difference 

between Baseline and Target Status .........................................................................7-18

7-7 Conservation Gaps for LCR Fall and Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Populations: 

Difference between Baseline and Target Status ......................................................7-18

8-1 Life Cycle of Columbia River Chum Salmon ............................................................8-2

8-2 Baseline Status of Historical Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations ...........8-5

8-3 Conservation Gaps for Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations: Difference 

between Baseline and Target Status .........................................................................8-10

9-1 Life Cycle of LCR Summer Steelhead.........................................................................9-3

9-2 Life Cycle of Winter Steelhead ....................................................................................9-4

9-3 Baseline Status of LCR Summer Steelhead Populations..........................................9-8

9-4 Baseline Status of LCR Winter Steelhead Populations ............................................9-9

9-5 Conservation Gaps for LCR Winter Steelhead Populations: Difference between 

Baseline and Target Status .........................................................................................9-14

9-6 Conservation Gaps for LCR Summer Steelhead Populations: Difference between 

Baseline and Target Status .........................................................................................9-14

10-1 The Adaptive Management Cycle ............................................................................10-2

10-2 NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework..............................................................10-4

11-1 Lower Columbia Recovery Plan Implementation Organizational Structure .....11-6

11-2 Oregon’s Organizational Implementation Structure ..........................................11-11

11-3 Institutional Structure for Implementing Salmon Recovery in Washington Lower 

Columbia River Subbasins .......................................................................................11-14
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xix

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AMIP Adaptive Management Implementation Plan

AMS Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy

ASMS Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy

BACI Before and After Control Impact

BiOp Biological Opinion

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

C&S ceremonial and subsistence

C3 Climate Change Collaboration

CATAS Conservation Assessment Tool for Anadromous Salmonids

CBFWA Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

CRT critical risk threshold

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DPS distinct population segment

EDT Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERME Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation for the Federal Columbia River Estuary 

Program

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU evolutionarily significant unit

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xx

FR Federal Register

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS geographical information system

GRTS generalized random tessellation stratified

HGMP Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan

HSRG Hatchery Scientific Review Group

IMW intensively monitored watershed

IP intrinsic potential

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISAB Independent Scientific Advisory Board

ISEMP Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program

ISTM Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring

IWA Integrated Watershed Assessment

kcfs thousand cubic feet per second

LCFRB Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 

LCR Lower Columbia River

MAT minimum abundance threshold

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPG major population group

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act

NFCP Native Fish Conservation Policy

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xxi

OWEB Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PCE primary constituent element

PCSRF Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds

pHOS proportion of hatchery-origin spawners

PNAMP Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership 

PNI proportion of natural influence

PUD public utility district

PVA Population Viability Analysis 

QET quasi-extinction threshold

RCW Revised Code of Washington

RIST Recovery Implementation Science Team

RKM river kilometer

RM river mile

RME research, monitoring, and evaluation

RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

RSW removable spillway weirs

SRFB Salmon Recovery Funding Board

SRS sediment retention structure

TRT Technical Recovery Team

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VSP viable salmonid populations
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xxii

WAGIT Washington Gorge Implementation Team

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WLC TRT Willamette-Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team

WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xxiii

Glossary

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

refers to the number of adult fish returning to spawn, measured over a time series.

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

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

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

actions can become feedback on design and implementation of future actions. 

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

water, and return to freshwater to spawn. 

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

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

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

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

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

salmonids) have evolved in common.

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

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

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

values.

compliance monitoring: Monitoring to determine whether a specific performance 

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

conservation gap: The difference between a population’s baseline status and its target 

status.

contributing population: A population for which some restoration will be needed to 

achieve the stratum-wide average viability recommended by the Washington-Lower 

Columbia Technical Recovery Team (i.e., 2.25 or higher).

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

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

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

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

and can be proposed for removal from the federal list of threatened and endangered 

species. These criteria are a NMFS determination and may include both technical and 

policy considerations.

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

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

considered distinct (and hence a “species” for purposes of conservation under the ESA) 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xxiv

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

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

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

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

variation within a population. Variations could include anadromy vs. lifelong residence 

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

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

female spawning behavior, physiology, molecular genetic characteristics, etc. 

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

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

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

vegetation?

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

portion of its range. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

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

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

Functionally extirpated populations are those of which there are so few remaining 

numbers that there are not enough fish or habitat in suitable condition to support a fully 

functional population.

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

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

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

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

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human-made 

factors affecting its continued existence.

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

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

habitat in suitable condition to support a fully functional population.

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

streams and rivers where groundwater and surface water mix. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xxv

implementation monitoring: Monitoring to determine whether an activity was 

performed and/or completed as planned.

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

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

altered by exchanges of individuals with other populations. 

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

variable. 

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

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

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

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

rearing of anadromous salmonid species under historical conditions inferred from 

stream characteristics including channel size, gradient, and valley width.

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

at levels of abundance below carrying capacity.

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

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

shortly after spawning).

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

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

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

resistance to flooding.

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

in the present day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mandates and recovery needs.

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

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

ESU/DPS recovery.

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

basis of state, tribal or local jurisdictional boundaries that encompass all or a portion of 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xxvi

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

metrics: Something that quantifies a characteristic of a situation or process; for example, 

the number of natural-origin salmon returning to spawn to a specific location is a metric 

for population abundance.

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

features.

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

parental origin.

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

sac and transformation to smolt before migration seaward.

persistence probability: The complement of a population’s extinction risk (i.e., 

persistence probability = 1 – extinction risk).

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

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

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

primary population: A population that is targeted for restoration to high or very high 

persistence probability.

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

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

from low numbers. The terms “population growth rate” and “population productivity” 

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

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

number of smolts per spawner.

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

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

Recovery domains may contain one or more listed ESUs. 

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

include delisting (i.e. no longer considered endangered or threatened), reclassification 

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

of recovery goals (see glossary entry above). 

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

ESU, generally consistent with TRT recommendations for ESU viability.

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

for the species’ recovery program. 

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

fertilized and deposited. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xxvii

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

of water and the adjacent upland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

occupy an area.

stabilizing population: A population that is targeted for maintenance at its baseline 

persistence probability, which is likely to be low or very low.

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

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

stratum: A group of salmonid populations that are geographically and genetically 

cohesive. The stratum is a level of organization between demographically independent 

populations and the ESU or DPS. 

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

products related to recovery planning. Planning forums unique to specific states, tribes, 

or regions may use TRT and other technical products to identify recovery actions.

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

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

threat reduction scenario: A specific combination of reductions in threats from various 

sectors that would lead to a population achieving its target status.

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

development, fish harvest, hatchery influences, volcanoes) that cause or contribute to 

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

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

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

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. These criteria are used as technical input 

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

of biological delisting criteria.

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

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

frame.

viable salmonid population (VSP): An independent population of any 

Pacific salmonid (genus Oncorhynchus) that has a negligible risk of extinction due to 

threats from demographic variation (random or directional), local 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

xxviii

environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes (random or directional ) over a 

100-year time frame.

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

describe characteristics of salmonid populations that are useful in evaluating population 

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

populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units (McElhany et al. 2000).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-1

Executive Summary

About This Recovery Plan

This is a plan for the recovery of Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss), Lower Columbia River coho 

salmon (O. kisutch), and Columbia River chum salmon (O. keta), all of which spawn and 

rear in the lower Columbia River or its tributaries in Oregon and Washington. These 

salmon and steelhead were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA) between 1998 and 2005. Each is considered an evolutionarily significant unit 

(ESU) or, for steelhead, a distinct population segment (DPS). An ESU or DPS is a group 

of Pacific salmon or steelhead that is discrete from other groups of the same species and 

that represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species.1

Under the Endangered Species Act, each ESU or DPS is treated as a species. For 

convenience this recovery plan frequently uses the term “ESU” to refer to both the 

salmon ESUs and the steelhead DPS.

The core of the plan is a set of goals and actions for each ESU that, if implemented, 

would reverse the ESU’s decline and lead to recovery of the ESU. Biological recovery for 

an ESU means that it is naturally self-sustaining and no longer requires the protection of 

the ESA: enough fish spawn in the wild and return year after year that the ESU is likely 

to persist in the long run. A recovered ESU is resilient enough that it can survive typical 

variations in ocean conditions and productivity and has a high likelihood of 

withstanding catastrophic changes in the environment, such as floods, landslides, 

and earthquakes. 

The ESA requires the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to develop recovery 

plans for all listed salmon and steelhead species. NMFS is a branch of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and is sometimes referred to as NOAA 

Fisheries. As the federal agency charged with stewardship of the nation’s marine 

resources, NMFS has the responsibility for listing and delisting salmon and steelhead 

species under the ESA. 

Although NMFS is directly responsible for ESA recovery planning for salmon and 

steelhead, the agency believes that ESA recovery plans for salmon and steelhead should 

be based on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts 

already under way throughout the region, and that local support of recovery plans is 

essential to success. Accordingly, NMFS based this recovery plan on the information, 

analyses, and strategies in three locally developed recovery plans, which are referred to 

as management unit plans.

Each ESU is made up of multiple independent populations, and each management unit 

plan covers populations in a different portion of the ESU’s range:

 1 A DPS is defined based on discreteness in behavioral, physiological, and morphological characteristics, 

whereas the definition of an ESU emphasizes genetic and reproductive isolation. (For a fuller explanation 

see, Section 1.4.4 of the recovery plan.)
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-2

• The Oregon Lower Columbia Conservation and Recovery Plan for Salmon and Steelhead

covers the Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations that are 

within Oregon, including the Willamette River up to Willamette Falls. The Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) developed this plan in collaboration 

with NMFS and numerous stakeholders, including governments, agencies, tribes, 

industry and environmental representatives, and the public (Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife 2010). 

• ESA Salmon Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Subbasin covers Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations in the White Salmon River 

basin in Washington. NMFS developed this plan in cooperation with stakeholders 

such as the Yakama Nation, Klickitat County, and Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (National Marine Fisheries Service 2013).

• Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan

covers Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations in Southwest 

Washington, within the planning area of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery 

Board (LCFRB). The LCFRB developed this plan using a collaborative process that 

involved multiple agencies (including NMFS), tribal and other governments, 

organizations, industry, and the public (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

2010a). 

Two other documents, both developed by NMFS, were key in development of this 

recovery plan: the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and 

Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) and the Recovery Plan Module: Mainstem Columbia River 

Hydropower Projects (NMFS 2008a). These documents, which address regional-scale 

issues affecting Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead, as well as other listed 

salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs, provide a consistent set of assumptions and recovery 

actions that management unit recovery planners incorporated into their management 

unit plans.

Recovery plans are not regulatory documents. Their implementation is voluntary, except 

when they incorporate actions required as part of a regulatory process, such as ESA 

section 7, 10, and 4(d). For this recovery plan, NMFS will rely, to a great extent, on local 

citizens and organizations, as well as on other federal and state agencies, local 

jurisdictions, and tribal governments, to voluntarily implement the recovery actions. In 

some cases, the plan puts forward new recovery efforts that are not part of existing

processes. In other cases, the plan recommends coordinating existing programs, both 

regulatory and non-regulatory, in ways that enhance benefits to Lower Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead and their ecosystems. Some actions that are integrated into this 

recovery plan originate in regulatory processes; examples include actions associated 

with the 2008 Bull Run Water Supply Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the 2008 Federal 

Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing agreements (for tributary hydroelectric 

projects), and the regulation of fisheries that may affect the Lower Columbia River ESUs. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-3

This recovery plan lays out an overall road map for recovery. After the plan is adopted, 

additional work will be needed in some cases to identify and prioritize2 site-specific 

projects, determine costs and time frames, and identify responsible parties, based on 

strategies and actions in the recovery plan. To address these needs, each entity that 

developed a management unit plan (i.e., ODFW, NMFS, and LCFRB) also will prepare 

an “implementation schedule” that spells out the details of implementation for its 

specific geographical area. Implementation schedules will be updated every 3 to 6 years.

Overall Goal

In general, the goal of this plan is for the Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU, 

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU, Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS, and 

Columbia River chum salmon ESU to reach the point at which they no longer need the 

protection of the Endangered Species Act and can be delisted. The delisting decision is 

made by NMFS, using the best available science. NMFS’ delisting criteria are presented

later in this summary, after some basic technical information and the population-specific 

goals are explained.

Technical Foundation

NMFS appointed teams of scientists with expertise in salmonid species to provide 

scientific support for recovery planners in the Pacific Northwest. These technical 

recovery teams (TRTs) worked from a common scientific foundation to ensure that 

recovery plans would be scientifically sound and based on consistent biological 

principles. All the TRTs based their work on biological principles established by NMFS 

for salmon recovery planning. 

The Willamette-Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team (WLC TRT) included 

biologists from NMFS, other federal agencies, states, tribes, academic institutions, and 

the private sector. The WLC TRT and a subsequent work group consisting of NMFS 

staff, ODFW staff, and a private consultant produced a set of technical reports that, 

taken together, present recommended biological criteria and methodologies for 

determining whether the four Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead ESUs are 

viable. A viable ESU is naturally self-sustaining over the long term. 

Consistent with principles established by NMFS, the WLC TRT described salmon and 

steelhead viability in terms of four interrelated parameters:

• Abundance and productivity. Abundance refers to the number of adult fish on 

the spawning grounds. Productivity is the population’s growth rate, which 

indicates whether the population can sustain itself or rebound from low numbers. 

Productivity can be measured as spawner-to-spawner ratios (i.e., returns per 

spawner or recruits per spawner), annual population growth rate, or trends in 

abundance. Abundance and productivity are closely linked, and a population

needs both: abundance to maintain genetic health and respond to normal 

 2 Some prioritization work already has been done, in that the management unit plans identify high-priority 

reaches for tributary habitat protection and restoration actions. In addition, the Oregon and White Salmon 

management unit plans offer some guidance on how actions might be prioritized. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-4

environmental variation, and productivity to bounce back if population numbers 

drop for some reason.

• Spatial structure. Spatial structure refers to both the geographic distribution of 

individuals in the population and the processes or conditions that generate that 

distribution. Factors affecting spatial structure include the amount of habitat 

available, how connected the habitat is, and how much neighboring populations 

mix with each other. Spatial structure is important because a species that is not 

geographically spread out is at risk of extinction from a single catastrophic event, 

such as a landslide. 

• Diversity. Diversity refers to the variety of life history, behavioral, and 

physiological traits within and among populations. Some traits are determined 

completely by genetics, while others, such as appearance, behavior, and life 

history, vary as a result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

Diversity is important because it gives populations an edge in surviving (and 

eventually adapting to) environmental change.

To understand the WLC TRT’s biological criteria, it helps to know something about the 

biological structure of salmon and steelhead species. The Lower Columbia River 

Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River coho salmon, Lower Columbia River steelhead, 

and Columbia River chum salmon ESUs each consist of multiple independent 

populations that spawn in different watersheds throughout the ESU’s range. 

Additionally, within an ESU, independent populations can be organized into larger 

groups, known as strata. Stratum designation is based on the combination of ecological 

zone and life history strategy (indicated by the time of year when adults return to fresh 

water to spawn). In the lower Columbia region there are three ecological zones—Coast, 

Cascade, and Gorge. Two ESUs—Chinook and steelhead—display more than one life 

history strategy. Thus, the strata in this recovery plan include Coast, Cascade, and Gorge 

coho, Coast fall Chinook, Cascade fall Chinook, Gorge fall Chinook, Cascade spring 

Chinook, Gorge spring Chinook, etc. 

The WLC TRT developed biological criteria and methodologies at three different levels: 

ESU, stratum, and population. The following are the TRT’s key points in defining a 

viable ESU:

• Every stratum that historically existed should have a high probability of persistence.

• Within each stratum, there should be at least two populations that have at least a 

95 percent probability of persisting over a 100-year time frame.

• Within each stratum, the average viability of the populations should be 2.25 or 

higher, using the WLC TRT’s scoring system. Functionally, this is equivalent to 

about half of the populations in the stratum being viable; a viable population is one 

whose persistence probability is high or very high.

• Populations targeted for viability should include those within the ESU that 

historically were the most productive (“core” populations) and that best represent 

the historical genetic diversity of the ESU (“genetic legacy” populations). In 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-5

addition, viable populations should be geographically dispersed in a way that 

protects against the effects of catastrophic events.

• Viable populations should meet specific criteria for abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity.

There are various ways to refer to extinction risk: as viability, persistence probability, 

extinction risk, or—at the population level—population status. This recovery plan 

frequently uses the terms “persistence probability” and “population status.” Only 

populations with a persistence probability of 95 percent or higher over a 100-year time 

frame are considered viable. These populations have a population status of high or very 

high.

Table ES-1

Population-level Probability* of Persistence, Extinction Risk, and Status

Probability of 

Persistence

Probability of 

Extinction Extinction Risk Population Status

0 – 40% 60 – 100% Extinct or at very high risk of extinction (VH) Very low (VL)

40 – 75% 25 – 60% Relatively high risk of extinction (H) Low (L)

75 – 95% 5 – 25% Moderate risk of extinction (M) Medium (M)

95 – 99% 1 – 5% Low/negligible risk of extinction (L) High (H)

> 99% < 1% Very low risk of extinction (VL) Very high (VH)

+ Probability over a 100-year time frame.

Shading indicates levels at which a population is considered viable.

Population-specific Goals: The Recovery Scenario

The WLC TRT defined viability at the ESU, stratum, and population levels, but it did not 

specify the target status for each population because (1) there are many different 

combinations of target statuses that would meet the TRT’s viability criteria, and (2) the 

“best” combination is a function of the biological and ecological conditions on the 

ground and local community values and interests. Oregon, Washington, and White 

Salmon management unit planners collaborated to reach agreement on which 

populations to target for which levels of viability. In making these decisions, 

management unit planners considered the WLC TRT’s viability criteria and the 

following questions:

• Which populations historically were the most productive? 

• Which populations represent important historical genetic diversity?

• Are the populations targeted for viability dispersed in a way that minimizes risk 

from catastrophic events? 

• Which populations can be expected to make significant progress toward 

recovery because of existing programs, the absence of apparent impediments to 

recovery, and other management considerations?
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-6

• Are there populations that are unlikely to make significant progress toward 

recovery because of other societal goals, such as maintaining harvest or 

development opportunities?

The resulting target statuses for each ESU are collectively referred to as the recovery 

scenario and served as the basis from which to calculate numerical abundance and 

productivity goals for each population. (Table 3-1 of the recovery plan shows the 

recovery scenario for each ESU.)

Under the recovery scenario not all populations are targeted for a high degree of 

improvement, but all of them will need recovery actions—even so-called “stabilizing” 

populations. These are populations that are expected to remain at or near their current 

status (usually low or very low) because the feasibility of restoration is low and the 

uncertainty of success is high. “Primary” populations, on the other hand, are targeted 

for viability, meaning high or very high persistence probability. “Contributing” 

populations fall in the middle; they are targeted for some improvement in status so that 

the stratum-wide average viability is 2.25 or higher. 

The recovery scenarios in the management unit plans are largely consistent with the 

WLC TRT’s recommendations at the stratum and ESU level. Exceptions are the Gorge 

fall Chinook, Gorge spring Chinook, and Gorge chum strata, where the recovery 

scenarios target only one population to achieve a high probability of persistence, instead 

of two. As a way of mitigating for this increased risk in the Gorge strata, the recovery 

scenarios exceed the WLC TRT criteria in the Cascade fall Chinook, Cascade spring 

Chinook, and Cascade chum strata (i.e., more populations are targeted for viability than 

are needed to meet the 2.25 average). In addition, management unit recovery planners 

raised questions about the historical role of the Gorge fall Chinook, spring Chinook, and 

chum populations: were the populations highly persistent historically, did they function 

as independent populations within their stratum in the same way that the Coast and 

Cascade populations did, and should the Gorge stratum be considered a separate 

stratum from the Cascade stratum? Oregon recovery planners suggested that the Gorge 

strata’s historical status and population structure be reevaluated and that recovery goals 

be revised if modifications are made; NMFS agrees that the historical role of the Gorge 

populations and strata merits further examination.

NMFS Delisting Criteria

As described above, the overall goal of this recovery plan is for the four ESUs to reach 

the point at which they no longer need the protection of the ESA and can be delisted. In 

order to be delisted, the species must no longer be in danger of extinction or likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future, based on evaluation of the factors that 

caused the species to be listed in the first place. In accordance with the ESA, this 

recovery plan incorporates objective, measurable criteria for determining whether an 

ESU can be delisted.3 These criteria are of two types: biological viability criteria 

and threats criteria. 

 

3 The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate objective, 

measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination in accordance with the provisions of the 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-7

Biological Viability Criteria

NMFS has concluded that the WLC TRT’s viability criteria, the recovery scenarios, and 

the population-level abundance and productivity goals in the management unit plans 

adequately describe the characteristics of an ESU that no longer needs the protections of 

the ESA. NMFS endorses the recovery scenarios and population-level goals in the 

management unit plans as one of multiple possible scenarios consistent with delisting.

Therefore, NMFS has developed the following biological viability criteria:

• All strata that historically existed have a high probability of persistence or have a 

probability of persistence consistent with their historical condition. 

• High probability of stratum persistence is defined as: 

A. At least two populations in the stratum have at least a 95 percent probability 

of persistence over a 100-year time frame (i.e., two populations with a score 

of 3.0 or higher based on the TRT’s scoring system). 

B. Other populations in the stratum have persistence probabilities consistent 

with a high probability of stratum persistence (i.e., the average of all stratum 

population scores is 2.25 or higher, based on the TRT’s scoring system). (See 

Section 2.6 of the recovery plan for a brief discussion of the TRT’s 

scoring system.) 

C. Populations targeted for a high probability of persistence are distributed in a 

way that minimizes risk from catastrophic events, maintains migratory 

connections among populations, and protects within-stratum diversity.

• Probability of persistence consistent with historical condition refers to the concept 

that strata that historically were small or had complex population structures may not 

have met Criteria A through C, above, but could still be considered sufficiently 

viable if they provide a contribution to overall ESU viability similar to their 

historical contribution.

Threats Criteria

In addition, for a species to be delisted, the threats that brought it to its threatened or 

endangered condition must be ameliorated such that they do not keep the ESU from 

achieving the desired biological status. The ESA identifies five categories of threats (any 

one or a combination of which may be the basis for the initial listing):

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ 

habitat or range

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes

C. Disease or predation

 

ESA that the species be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

(50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-8

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting the species’ continued 

existence

The threats criteria in this recovery plan define the conditions under which the threats 

can be considered to be addressed or mitigated. Threats criteria for measuring recovery 

of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead ESUs are detailed in Section 3.2.2 of the 

recovery plan. In general, the threats criteria for the Lower Columbia River ESUs are 

considered met once the recovery plan actions have been substantially implemented, 

population-specific threat reduction targets have been met (or threat impacts are 

otherwise consistent with the desired status of the ESU and its constituent populations), 

threats have been ameliorated such that the desired status will be maintained, and 

regulatory mechanisms are being implemented in a way that supports attainment and 

maintenance of the desired status. 

Site-specific Recovery Actions and Cost Estimates

Site-specific recovery actions are discussed in detail in the management unit plans. The 

Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion and related recovery 

plan hydropower module describe site-specific actions related to passage at Bonneville 

Dam, predation, and flow that affects conditions in the lower Columbia River, estuary, 

and, potentially, the plume. Site-specific actions for the Columbia River estuary and 

plume are presented in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead.

The total estimated cost of recovery actions for the four threatened species in the lower 

Columbia River over the next 25 years is approximately $2.1 billion, of which about 

$614 million is expected to be needed in the first 5 years (see Table ES-2). These estimates 

include expenditures by local, tribal, state, and federal governments, private business, 

and individuals in implementing capital projects and non-capital work, as well as 

administrative costs for supervision and coordination. The total estimated cost includes 

$592 million ($164 in the first 5 years) for actions in the Columbia River estuary that are 

basinwide in scope and are expected to benefit all 13 listed ESUs and DPSs in the 

Columbia Basin.

The estimates are based on the best available information at the time the management 

unit plans were completed and are expected to change as implementation schedules are 

developed and actions are more clearly scoped and planned. Given that the costs for 

many actions could not be estimated at the time the management unit plans were 

completed, it is likely that actual costs will be substantially higher than the estimated 

costs in Table ES-2.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-9

Table ES-2

Summary of Cost Estimates 

Management Unit 5-Year Cost Estimate

(millions)

25-Year Cost Estimate

(millions)

Washington $245 $738

Oregon $189 $758

White Salmon $16 $16

Columbia River Estuary $164 $592

TOTAL $614 $2,104

The remaining sections of this summary focus mostly on the results of the recovery 

analysis for each ESU. After briefly explaining the overall approach used to complete the 

ESU recovery analyses, the summary describes general categories of limiting factors that 

affect multiple ESUs throughout the Lower Columbia region and strategies for 

addressing those limiting factors at the regional or programmatic level. This is followed 

by an individual section for each ESU that highlights that ESU’s baseline and target 

status, the factors that are limiting its viability, and the strategy for reducing limiting 

factors and threats and achieving recovery. The summary concludes with thoughts on

the role of research, monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management and how 

recovery actions will be coordinated and implemented. Key documents referred to in 

this summary are listed at the end. 

Overall Approach to ESU Recovery Analyses

This recovery plan addresses the needs of each ESU individually, based on analyses in 

the three management unit plans. Although each recovery planning team used a slightly 

different process in developing its management unit plan, all of the teams worked from 

the same TRT recommendations and a consistent set of assumptions about what 

elements should be included in their plans. Thus, the different recovery planning teams 

followed the same overall approach in their recovery analyses. In general, the 

management unit recovery planners did the following:

1. Evaluated the baseline status of their respective populations using techniques 

based on those recommended by the WLC TRT.4

2. Identified limiting factors for each Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead 

population.

3. For each population, quantified the estimated baseline impacts of six categories of 

threats—tributary habitat loss and degradation, estuary habitat loss and 

degradation, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and ecological interactions. 

 4 Both Oregon and Washington management unit planners established a baseline period from which to 

assess population status, limiting factors, and threat impacts. For more discussion, see Sections 5.1 and 5.5. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-10

4. Established a target status for each population, taking into consideration (1) each 

population’s potential for improvement, in view of available habitat and historical 

production, (2) the degree of improvement needed in each stratum to meet 

WLC TRT guidelines for a viable ESU, and (3) for some ESUs, the desire to 

accommodate objectives such as maintaining opportunities to harvest hatcheryorigin fish. 

5. Calculated the improvements in abundance and productivity and, in some cases, 

spatial structure and diversity, that each population would need to achieve its 

target status (i.e., to close the “conservation gap,” which is the difference between 

the baseline and target status for each population). 

6. Identified a “threat reduction scenario” for each population, meaning a specific 

combination of reductions in threats that would lead to the population achieving 

its target status. 

7. Identified and scaled recovery strategies and actions to reduce threats by the 

targeted amount in each category. Management unit planners identified recovery 

strategies and actions through workshops and meetings with stakeholders, 

including representatives of implementing and affected entities.

8. Considered the probable effects of actions, established benchmarks for 

implementation, and identified critical uncertainties and research, monitoring, and 

evaluation needs for each species. 

9. Developed implementation frameworks that address organizational structures for 

implementation of the actions, prioritization methods, tracking systems, 

coordination needs and approaches, and stakeholder involvement.

Given the complexity of the salmonid life cycle and the fact that complete data were not 

available for every population, some elements of the recovery analyses are subject to 

significant levels of uncertainty and should be considered working hypotheses that are 

testable as part of recovery plan implementation. Despite this uncertainty, it is the expert 

judgment of NMFS and the management unit scientists that, based on the best available 

information at this time, the results of the management unit plan analyses provide 

reasonable estimates of the relative magnitude of different threats to each population 

and the improvements that need to be addressed through recovery actions. Thus, NMFS 

considers the management plan analyses an adequate basis for designing initial recovery 

actions. As more and better information is collected, it will be applied to recovery efforts 

in an adaptive management framework that involves action implementation, monitoring 

of results, and adjustment of actions as needed. 

The management unit plans’ recovery analyses indicate that no single factor, threat, or 

threat category accounts for the declines in the species addressed in this recovery plan. 

Instead, the status of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead and Columbia River 

chum is the result of the cumulative impact of multiple limiting factors and threats. 

Thus, recovery will be accomplished through improvements in every general threat 

category. Even small increments of improvement will play an important role. When the 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-11

need for improvement for most ESUs is so large, the contribution of no population or 

threat reduction can be discounted. 

Regional Limiting Factors and Strategies

The reasons for a species’ decline are generally described in terms of limiting factors and 

threats. Limiting factors are biological, physical, or chemical conditions and associated 

ecological processes and interactions that limit a species’ viability. Threats are human 

activities or natural events, such as floodplain development or drought, that cause or 

contribute to limiting factors. Although the management unit plans analyze limiting 

factors and threats for each population, it also can be helpful to view limiting factors and 

threats from a regional, multi-species perspective—to discern large-scale patterns in 

ecological conditions that are affecting all or most of the listed ESUs. This aids in 

identifying regional approaches to recovery that can provide high biological benefit 

while making effective use of limited resources. The sections below describe such 

regional strategies, which are general approaches that either benefit multiple ESUs or 

can be tailored to meet the specific needs of each species. However, implementation of 

the regional strategies alone will not necessarily lead to recovery. The regional strategies 

are intended to supplement ESU-specific strategies that provide greater specificity and 

address specific needs at the species, stratum, and population levels. 

Tributary Habitat

Tributary habitat degradation from past and/or current land and water use is a limiting 

factor for all Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. Widespread 

development and other land use activities have disrupted watershed processes, reduced 

water quality, and diminished habitat quantity, quality, and complexity in most lower 

Columbia River subbasins. Past and/or current land use or water management activities 

have adversely affected stream and side channel structure, riparian conditions, 

floodplain function, sediment conditions, and water quality and quantity, as well as the 

watershed processes that create and maintain properly functioning conditions for 

salmon and steelhead.

The regional tributary habitat strategy is directed toward habitat protection and 

restoration to achieve adequate quantities of high-quality, well-functioning salmon and 

steelhead habitat. This will be accomplished through a combination of (1) site-specific 

projects that will protect habitat or provide benefits relatively quickly, (2) watershedbased actions that will repair habitat-forming processes and provide benefits over the 

long term, and (3) landscape-scale programmatic actions that affect a class of activities 

(such as stormwater management or forest practices) over multiple watersheds. 

Although many habitat-related actions already have been undertaken, current activities 

do not reflect the scale of habitat improvements needed. Recovery of the listed species 

will require concerted efforts to protect remaining areas of favorable habitat and restore 

habitat quality in significant historical production areas. There is an immediate need to 

complete prioritization frameworks and get additional targeted, site-specific protection 

and restoration actions, as well as programmatic approaches, on the ground as soon as 

possible, especially because the benefits of some habitat actions will take years to accrue.

Table ES-3 lists subbasins that will play a key role in recovery because they are targeted 

to support multiple primary populations, from different ESUs. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-12

Table ES-3

Subbasins Targeted to Support Three or More Primary Populations

Ecozone Subbasin Primary Populations

Coast Elochoman Fall Chinook, chum, coho

Clatskanie Fall Chinook, chum, coho

Scappoose Fall Chinook, chum, coho

Cascade Coweeman Fall Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

SF Toutle Fall Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

NF Toutle Fall Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

Cispus Spring Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

Upper Cowlitz Spring Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

NF Lewis Fall Chinook, late-fall Chinook, spring Chinook, chum

EF Lewis Fall Chinook, chum, winter steelhead, summer steelhead, coho

Washougal Fall Chinook, chum, summer steelhead

Sandy Late-fall Chinook, spring Chinook, chum, winter steelhead, coho

Gorge Lower Gorge tribs Chum, winter steelhead, coho

Hood Fall Chinook, spring Chinook, winter steelhead, 

summer steelhead, coho

Estuary Habitat

Habitat conditions in the Columbia River estuary and plume are important to the 

survival of all Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead during critical rearing, 

migration, and saltwater acclimation periods in their life cycle. Yet the amount and 

accessibility of in-channel, off-channel, and plume habitat have been reduced as a result 

of habitat conversion for agricultural, urban, and industrial uses, hydroregulation and 

flood control, channelization, and higher bankfull elevations, which have been 

facilitated by diking, dredging, and filling. Sediment conditions and toxic contaminants 

also have been identified as limiting factors in the estuary, as have high water 

temperatures in late summer and fall, changes in the food web, and predation.

Estuary habitat strategies focus on providing adequate off-channel and intertidal 

habitats, such as tidal swamp and marsh; restoring habitat complexity in areas modified 

by agricultural or rural residential use; decreasing exposure to toxic contaminants; and 

lowering water temperatures. This will be accomplished over the long term by restoring 

hydrologic, sediment, and riparian processes that structure habitat in the estuary. An 

aggressive, strategic approach needs to be developed for implementation of 

estuary actions.

Hydropower

Bonneville Dam is the only mainstem hydropower facility within the geographic range 

of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead, but flow management at large storage 

reservoirs in the interior of the Columbia Basin affect habitat in the lower Columbia 

River mainstem and estuary, and potentially in the plume. In addition, significant 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-13

tributary hydropower dams are located on the Cowlitz and Lewis rivers in Washington 

and on the Willamette, Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in Oregon.5 The impacts of 

hydropower facility construction and operation on Lower Columbia salmon and 

steelhead occur both locally (at, above, and immediately below dams) and downstream, 

in the Columbia River estuary and, potentially, the plume. Impacts include habitat 

inundation, impaired fish passage, higher water temperatures during the late summer 

and fall, and alterations in the timing and magnitude of flow that affect downstream 

habitat conditions and habitat-forming processes.

The regional hydropower strategy focuses on (1) improving passage survival at 

Bonneville Dam for Lower Columbia River populations that spawn above the dam, 

(2) addressing impacts in tributaries by implementing actions prescribed in Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission agreements regarding operation of individual tributary 

dams, and (3) implementing mainstem flow management operations designed to benefit 

spring migrants from the interior of the Columbia Basin; NMFS expects that these flow 

management operations will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the 

plume for all Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. The regional 

hydropower strategy includes actions identified in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion 

and its 2010 Supplement that will aid adults and juveniles from the Gorge populations 

in passing Bonneville Dam. For chum salmon, the strategy involves ensuring adequate 

flows in the Bonneville Dam tailrace and downstream habitats during chum salmon 

migration, spawning, incubation, and emergence. 

Hatcheries

Hatchery practices such as broodstock collection and spawning protocols can cause 

genetic changes in hatchery fish. When hatchery-origin fish spawn with natural-origin 

fish, genetic changes can be transmitted to the naturally produced fish; the larger the 

proportion of hatchery-origin spawners, the larger the genetic effects to the natural 

population. These genetic effects can include domestication and loss of diversity within 

the population. For decades, high proportions of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds 

have been common among many Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead 

populations, including the vast majority of Chinook and coho salmon populations. In 

addition, hatchery fish infected with pathogens or parasites have the potential to spread 

these organisms to natural-origin fish. Also, hatchery fish can sometimes prey directly 

on naturally produced juveniles, particularly chum salmon. Some scientists suspect that 

closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from Columbia Basin hatcheries may lead to 

increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and habitat space in the 

Columbia River estuary.

The overall goals of the hatchery recovery strategies for the Lower Columbia ESUs are to 

(1) reduce hatchery impacts on natural-origin populations as appropriate for each 

population, (2) ensure that some populations have no in-subbasin hatchery releases and 

are isolated from stray out-of-subbasin hatchery fish, (3) use hatchery stocks in the short 

term for reintroduction or supplementation programs to restore naturally spawning 

populations in some watersheds, and (4) ensure rigorous monitoring and evaluation to 

 5 Powerdale Dam, on the Hood River, was removed in 2010; Condit Dam, on the White Salmon River, was 

breached in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-14

better understand existing population status and the effects of hatchery strategies on 

natural populations.

Harvest

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, steelhead, and coho salmon are caught in 

commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries along the West Coast of the United States 

and Canada as well as in the mainstem Columbia River and its tributaries. These various 

fisheries focus on different stocks and populations, taking fish to meet commercial, 

recreational, and tribal harvest allocations. Harvest affects the viability of Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations by causing mortality to naturally 

produced adult fish, influencing population traits, and reducing nutrients in freshwater 

ecosystems. Harvest mortality can be either direct or indirect. Direct harvest mortality is 

associated with fisheries that target specific stocks. Indirect mortality includes mortality 

of fish harvested incidentally to the targeted species or stock, fish that die after being 

captured by fishing gear but not landed, and fish that die after being caught 

and released. Harvest managers have implemented substantial reductions in harvest for 

Lower Columbia River species since they were listed under the ESA. 

The management unit plans include the societal goal of maintaining harvest 

opportunities created by hatchery fish and have prioritized ESA recovery strategies that 

allow for continued harvest opportunities while working toward recovery; these 

strategies have been incorporated into the recovery plan. In addition, as part of their 

broad sense goals, the management unit plans envision eventual harvest of naturally 

produced salmon and steelhead from healthy, self-sustaining populations.6

Although each species’ harvest management requirements are unique, in general the 

harvest strategy focuses on refining harvest management and reducing impacts to 

naturally produced fish where needed while maintaining harvest opportunities that 

target hatchery-produced fish. The recovery plan calls for the use of six general 

approaches as appropriate and feasible: abundance-based harvest management, weakstock management, mark-selective harvest, filling information needs, ancillary and 

precautionary actions, and adaptive management.

Local recovery planners believe that for Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, 

steelhead, and chum salmon, current harvest impacts are generally consistent with longterm recovery goals, at least in the near term. For these species the recovery plan 

recommends measures to ensure that harvest does not adversely affect future 

conservation and recovery. For Lower Columbia fall Chinook and coho salmon, efforts 

will focus on (1) refinements in harvest management (including abundance-based 

management) to reduce risk to naturally produced fish, and (2) continued review of 

overall harvest rates. 

Ecological Interactions

Anthropogenic changes to habitat in the lower Columbia River region have altered the 

 6 Currently, targeted harvest on naturally produced North Fork Lewis late-fall Chinook salmon is occurring 

when returns are above the escapement goal. The baseline persistence probability of this population, which 

has remained largely uninfluenced by hatchery production and has not experienced the population 

bottlenecks common among tule fall Chinook salmon populations, is estimated to be high.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-15

relationships between salmonids and other fish and wildlife species, leaving Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead more vulnerable to predation by piscivorous fish, 

birds, and marine mammals (i.e., seals and sea lions) and subject to competition with 

introduced fish species and possibly hatchery-origin fish for limited food and habitat. 

The regional ecological interactions strategy involves reducing predation on all Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations by redistributing Caspian terns and 

cormorants, increasing the pikeminnow bounty program in the Columbia River 

mainstem, and reducing marine mammal predation at Bonneville Dam using non-lethal 

or lethal measures. Managing predation by sea lions at Bonneville Dam is expected to 

benefit Gorge-stratum populations of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead 

ESUs. To reduce the risk of adverse ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and 

naturally produced salmon and steelhead, the recovery plan proposes a combination of 

critical uncertainties research and near-term precautionary measures, such as restoring 

estuary habitat and managing hatchery releases to prevent large numbers of hatcheryorigin fish from accumulating in the estuary.

Climate Change

The warming rate for the Pacific Northwest over the next century is projected to be in 

the range of 0.1 to 0.6 °C per decade. Although total precipitation changes are predicted 

to be minor (+ 1 to 2 percent), increasing air temperature will alter snowpack, stream 

flow timing and volume, and water temperature in the Columbia Basin.

Changes in air temperatures, river temperatures, and river flows in the Pacific 

Northwest are expected to affect salmon and steelhead distribution, behavior, growth, 

and survival. The magnitude and timing of the changes are poorly understood, and 

specific effects are likely to vary among populations. However, likely effects on listed 

salmon and steelhead in fresh water include winter flooding of redds (i.e., salmon nests), 

earlier emergence of salmon fry, decreased parr-to-smolt survival, reductions in the 

quantity and quality of juvenile rearing habitat and possibly overwintering habitat, 

changes in the timing of smolt migration, and increased adult mortality or reduced 

spawning success as a result of higher water temperatures. 

Possible effects on salmon and steelhead in estuaries include altered growth and disease 

susceptibility, reduced quality of rearing habitat, and changes in the distribution of 

salmonid prey and predators, including possible extension of the range of non-native 

species adapted to warm water. 

Climate-related changes in the marine environment are expected to alter primary and 

secondary productivity, the structure of marine communities, and, in turn, the growth, 

productivity, survival, and migrations of salmonids, although the degree of impact on

listed salmonids currently is poorly understood. A mismatch between earlier smolt 

migrations (because of earlier peak spring freshwater flows and shorter incubation 

periods) and altered coastal upwelling may reduce marine survival rates. Ocean 

warming also may change migration patterns, increasing distances to feeding areas. 

In addition, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive changes in seawater 

chemistry, increasing the acidification of seawater and thus reducing the availability of 

carbonate for shell-forming invertebrates, including some that are prey items for 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-16

juvenile salmonids. Ocean acidification has the potential to reduce survival of many 

marine organisms, including salmon and steelhead. However, because there is currently 

a paucity of research directly related to the effects of ocean acidification on salmon and 

steelhead and their prey, potential effects are uncertain. 

The regional climate change strategy has two parts: (1) implementation of greenhouse 

gas reduction strategies, such as through the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming

Initiative7 and the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s recommendations,8 and 

(2) adaptation, to reduce the impacts of climate change on Pacific Northwest salmon and 

steelhead. Adaptation commonly involves the following:

• Conserving adequate habitat to support healthy fish populations and ecosystem 

functions in a changing climate

• Managing species and habitats to protect ecosystem functions in a changing climate

• Reducing stresses not caused by climate change

• Supporting adaptive management through integrated observation and monitoring 

and improved decision support tools

The management unit plans and estuary recovery plan module present specific actions 

that are responsive to these general strategies. The following documents also are 

relevant to adaptation:

• Climate Change Impacts on Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife

(Independent Scientific Advisory Board 2007a)

• Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework

(Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 2010)

• Washington State Integrated Climate Change Response Strategy (interim document)

(Washington Department of Ecology 2011)

• Draft National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 2012)

Human Population Growth

The Oregon and White Salmon management unit plans identify human population 

growth as a future threat to Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead, based in part 

on work done by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), which provides 

independent scientific advice and recommendations related to the fish and wildlife 

management responsibilities of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 

Columbia River Basin Indian tribes, and NMFS. Expected population growth rates will 

vary throughout the lower Columbia region; however, the ISAB expects that human 

population growth in the Columbia Basin will increase the demand for water, land, and 

 7 For the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative, go to http://www.ef.org/westcoastclimate/.

8 For the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s recommendations, see Oregon Department of Energy 

(2009) or go to http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM/GWC/docs/09CommissionReport.pdf.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-17

forests that are key to fish and wildlife populations. This demand for resources will 

increase threats to and extinction risks for fish and wildlife—including salmon and 

steelhead—through such mechanisms as loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat; 

increased stormwater runoff; and reduced groundwater recharge and thus base 

stream flows. 

The recovery plan includes actions that will lessen the impacts of human population 

growth. The focus is on protecting existing high-quality habitat through acquisition and 

conservation; using land use planning to guide future development away from 

ecologically sensitive areas, such as wetlands and floodplains; implementing best 

management practices; protecting and restoring instream flows, runoff processes, and 

water quality; and educating landowners and others.

Recovery Analysis: Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

This recovery plan covers all naturally spawned coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

populations in the lower Columbia River and its tributaries, from the mouth of the 

Columbia upstream to the Hood River (in Oregon) and the White Salmon River (in 

Washington), including the Willamette River up to Willamette Falls. Twenty-three coho

salmon hatchery programs also are part of the ESU. 

Historically, the Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU consisted of a total of 

24 independent populations that spawned in almost every accessible stream system in 

the lower Columbia River basin. Coho salmon typically spawn in small to medium, lowto-moderate elevation streams from valley bottoms to stream headwaters. Coho salmon 

particularly favor small, rain-driven, lower elevation streams characterized by 

(1) relatively low flows during late summer and early fall, and (2) increased river flows 

and decreased water temperatures in winter.

Baseline and Target Status: Coho Salmon

Today, 21 of the 24 Lower Columbia River coho salmon populations are considered to 

have a very low probability of persisting over the next 100 years, and none is considered 

viable. All three strata in the ESU fall significantly short of the WLC TRT criteria 

for viability.

Table ES-4

Baseline and Target Status* of LCR Coho Salmon Populations

Stratum Population Contribution

to Recovery Baseline Status Target Status 

Coast Youngs Bay (OR) Stabilizing VL VL

Grays/Chinook (WA) Primary VL H

Big Creek (OR) Stabilizing VL VL

Elochoman/Skamokawa (WA) Primary VL H

Clatskanie (OR) Primary L VH

Mill/Abernathy/Germany (WA) Contributing VL M

Scappoose (OR) Primary M VH

Cascade Lower Cowlitz (WA) Primary VL H

Upper Cowlitz (WA) Primary VL H

Cispus (WA) Primary VL H
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-18

Stratum Population Contribution

to Recovery Baseline Status Target Status 

Tilton (WA) Stabilizing VL VL

Toutle SF (WA) Primary VL H

Toutle NF (WA) Primary VL H

Coweeman (WA) Primary VL H

Kalama (WA) Contributing VL L

NF Lewis (WA) Contributing VL L

EF Lewis (WA) Primary VL H

Salmon Creek (WA) Stabilizing VL VL

Clackamas (OR) Primary M VH

Sandy (OR) Primary VL H

Washougal (WA) Contributing VL M+

Gorge Lower Gorge (WA & OR) Primary VL H

Upper Gorge/White Salmon (WA) Primary VL H

Upper Gorge/Hood (OR) Primary VL H*

*Status is equivalent to persistence probability. VL = very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high, 

VH = very high.

Figure ES-1. Conservation Gaps for LCR Coho Salmon Populations (i.e., Difference between 

Baseline and Target Status)

Prevalent Limiting Factors: Coho Salmon

Lower Columbia River coho salmon’s poor status is due to a host of limiting factors that 

have affected the ESU for decades, or longer. Table ES-5 lists prevalent limiting factors 

that the management unit plans identified as having the greatest impact during the 

baseline period.

In addition, tributary hydropower dams are a primary limiting factor for the Upper 

Cowlitz, North Fork Lewis, Cispus, Tilton, and Upper Gorge/White Salmon 

populations. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-19

Table ES-5

Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Coho Salmon during Baseline Period

Limiting Factor Populations for Which This Is a 

Primary Limiting Factor

Degraded riparian conditions along tributaries Almost all*

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions in tributaries Almost all

Loss/degradation of floodplain habitat in tributaries Almost all

Channel structure and form issues

9

 in tributaries and the 

Columbia River estuary

Almost all

Sediment conditions in the estuary Almost all

Water quantity issues (i.e., altered hydrology) in the estuary Almost all

Direct mortality from fisheries Almost all

Reduction in population diversity as a result of stray hatchery 

fish interbreeding with natural-origin fish

All except Clatskanie, Scappoose, 

Coweeman, NF Lewis, and Sandy

* “Almost all” means every population except one in each stratum.

Recovery Strategy: Coho Salmon

The ESU recovery strategy for coho salmon involves improvements in all threat 

categories to increase abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure to the 

point that the Coast, Cascade, and Gorge strata are restored to a high probability of 

persistence. The ESU recovery strategy has seven main elements:

1. Protect and improve populations that have a clear record of continuous natural 

spawning and are likely to retain local adaptation (the Clackamas and Sandy), 

along with populations where there is documented natural production (the 

Clatskanie, Scappoose, and Mill/Abernathy/Germany). 

2. Fill information gaps regarding the extent of natural production in other 

populations, and focus additional recovery efforts on populations that have the 

greatest prospects for improvement.

3. Protect existing high-functioning habitat for all populations. 

4. Restore tributary habitat (particularly overwintering habitat) to the point that 

each subbasin can support coho salmon at the target status for that population. 

In most subbasins, this will mean having adequate habitat to support a 

viable population.

5. Reduce hatchery impacts on natural-origin fish so that impacts are consistent 

with the target status of each population. (The Grays/Chinook, 

Elochoman/Skamokawa, Mill/Abernathy/Germany, Clatskanie, Clackamas, 

Washougal, and Gorge-stratum populations are targeted for large reductions in 

hatchery impacts.) 

 9 Includes conditions such as channelization, reduced instream habitat complexity, fill and scour, and 

associated loss of spawning habitat.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-20

6. Refine harvest management so that impacts are consistent with population and 

overall ESU recovery goals.

7. Reestablish naturally spawning populations above tributary dams on the 

Cowlitz and North Fork Lewis rivers by improving passage at dams and 

continuing to reintroduce coho salmon in these mid- to high-elevation habitats. 

For most coho salmon populations, loss and degradation of tributary habitat are the 

single largest threat—and where the greatest gains in viability are expected to be 

achieved. Notable exceptions are the Clackamas, Upper Cowlitz, and Cispus 

populations. For the Clackamas population, protection of existing well-functioning 

habitat and reductions in hatchery impacts will play a key role in achieving the target 

status. The Upper Cowlitz and Cispus populations are projected to benefit greatly from 

hatchery reintroduction programs and dam passage improvements designed to restore 

their access to key historical spawning and rearing habitats. However, significant 

tributary habitat protection and restoration efforts also will be necessary for these 

populations. In most cases, population recovery objectives cannot be achieved without 

substantial improvements in habitat, even when the impacts of other, non-habitat 

threats are practically eliminated.

Although recent actions have substantially reduced coho salmon harvest levels from 

baseline conditions, further refinements in harvest management are still needed. 

Reductions in hatchery impacts are called for in all strata because hatchery impacts 

remain significant for many populations.

Recovery Analysis: Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon

This recovery plan covers all naturally spawned Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) populations in the lower Columbia River and its tributaries, from the mouth 

of the Columbia upstream to the Hood River (in Oregon) and the White Salmon River 

(in Washington), including the Willamette River up to Willamette Falls but excluding 

Clackamas River spring-run Chinook salmon.10 Chinook salmon from 20 hatchery 

programs also are part of the ESU.11

Historically, the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU consisted of a total of 

32 independent populations: 21 fall populations, two late-fall populations, and nine 

spring populations. These classifications are based on when adults return to fresh water. 

Spring and late-fall Chinook salmon are “stream-type” salmon, meaning that they 

generally rear in the river for a full year before emigrating to the ocean. Returning 

spring Chinook salmon adults spawn primarily in upstream, higher elevation portions 

of large subbasins. Fall Chinook display an “ocean-type” life history, meaning that 

juveniles begin emigrating downstream at 1 to 4 months old and make extensive use of 

 10 Clackamas River spring Chinook salmon are part of the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU.

11 One of these programs—the Elochoman tule fall Chinook salmon program—was discontinued in 2009. In 

its 2011 5-year review, NMFS recommended that this program be removed from the ESU and that four new 

fall Chinook salmon programs be added. The new programs are changes in release locations for fish 

produced at—and previously released from—hatchery programs that are currently part of the ESU. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-21

the Columbia River estuary before entering the ocean. Returning fall Chinook spawn in 

moderate-sized streams and large river mainstems.

Fall Chinook are commonly referred to as “tule” stock, while late-fall Chinook are 

referred to as “brights.”

Baseline and Target Status: Chinook Salmon

Today, only two of 32 historical populations—the North Fork Lewis and Sandy late-fall 

populations—are considered viable. Most populations (26 out of 32) have a very low 

probability of persistence over the next 100 years, and some populations are extirpated 

or nearly so. Five of the six strata fall significantly short of the WLC TRT criteria for 

viability. One stratum—Cascade late fall—meets the WLC TRT criteria. 

Table ES-6

Baseline and Target Status* of LCR Chinook Salmon Populations

Stratum Population Core or Genetic 

Legacy?**

Contribution 

to Recovery Baseline Status Target Status

Cascade Upper Cowlitz (WA) C, GL Primary VL H+

spring Cispus (WA) C Primary VL H+

Tilton (WA) Stabilizing VL VL

Toutle (WA) Contributing VL M

Kalama (WA) Contributing VL L

NF Lewis (WA) C Primary VL H

Sandy (OR) C, GL Primary M H

Gorge White Salmon (WA) C Contributing VL L+

spring Hood (OR) Primary VL VH

Coast Youngs Bay (OR) Stabilizing L L

fall Grays/Chinook (WA) Contributing VL M+

Big Creek (OR) C Contributing VL L

Elochoman/Skamokawa (WA) C Primary VL H

Clatskanie (OR) Primary VL H

Mill/Abernathy/Germany (WA) Primary VL H

Scappoose (OR) Primary L H

Cascade Lower Cowlitz (WA) C Contributing VL M+

fall Upper Cowlitz (WA) Stabilizing VL VL

Toutle (WA) C Primary VL H+

Coweeman (WA) GL Primary L H+

Kalama (WA) Contributing VL M

Lewis (WA) GL Primary VL H+

Salmon Creek (WA) Stabilizing VL VL

Clackamas (OR) C Contributing VL M

Sandy (OR) Contributing VL M

Washougal (WA) Primary VL H+

Gorge Lower Gorge (WA & OR) Contributing VL M

fall Upper Gorge (WA & OR) C Contributing VL M

White Salmon (WA) C Contributing VL M

Hood (OR) Primary VL H
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-22

Stratum Population Core or Genetic 

Legacy?**

Contribution 

to Recovery Baseline Status Target Status

Cascade NF Lewis (WA) C, GL Primary VH VH

late fall Sandy (OR) C, GL Primary H VH

* Status is equivalent to persistence probability. VL = very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high, 

VH = very high.

** C = Core populations, meaning those that historically were the most productive. G = Genetic legacy 

populations, which best represent historical genetic diversity.

Figure ES-2. Conservation Gaps for LCR Spring Chinook Salmon Populations 

(i.e., Difference between Baseline and Target Status)

Figure ES-3. Conservation Gaps for LCR Fall and Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Populations 

(i.e., Difference between Baseline and Target Status)
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-23

Spring Chinook Recovery Analysis

Prevalent Limiting Factors: Spring Chinook Salmon

Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon’s poor status is due to a host of limiting 

factors that have affected the ESU for decades, or longer. Table ES-7 lists prevalent 

limiting factors that the management unit plans identified as having the greatest impact 

during the baseline period.

Table ES-7

Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Spring Chinook Salmon during Baseline Period

Limiting Factor Populations for Which This Is a 

Primary Limiting Factor

Channel structure and form issues

12 in the Columbia River 

estuary

Almost all*

Sediment conditions in the estuary Almost all

Water quantity issues (i.e., altered hydrology) in the estuary Almost all

Reduction in population diversity as a result of stray hatchery 

fish interbreeding with natural-origin fish

Almost all

Tributary hydropower dams Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, NF Lewis, 

and White Salmon

Direct mortality from fisheries Upper Cowlitz, Cispus Tilton, Toutle, 

Kalama, NF Lewis, and Hood

Degraded riparian conditions in tributaries All Cascade-stratum populations

Channel structure and form issues in tributaries All Cascade-stratum populations

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions in tributaries All Cascade-stratum populations

Loss/degradation of floodplain habitat in tributaries All Cascade-stratum populations

* “Almost all” means every population except one in each stratum.

Recovery Strategy: Spring Chinook Salmon

The recovery strategy for spring Chinook salmon is aimed at restoring the Cascade 

spring stratum to a high probability of persistence and improving the persistence 

probability of the two Gorge spring populations. Although the strategy involves threat 

reductions in all categories, the most crucial elements are as follows:

1. Protect and improve the Sandy spring Chinook salmon population, which is the 

best-performing population and the only Lower Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon population with appreciable natural production. This will be 

accomplished by protecting high-quality, well-functioning spawning and rearing 

 12 Includes channelization, reduced instream habitat complexity, fill and scour, and associated loss of 

spawning habitat.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-24

habitat, reducing the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS), managing 

predation, and restoring tributary and estuarine habitat.13

2. Reestablish naturally spawning populations above dams on the Cowlitz and 

North Fork Lewis rivers, in areas that historically were highly productive, by 

improving adult and juvenile dam passage and developing hatchery 

reintroduction programs using broodstock from within-subbasin hatchery 

programs. Reestablishing populations in mid- to upper-elevation habitats is key 

to recovering the spring component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon ESU.

3. Protect favorable tributary habitat and restore degraded but potentially 

productive habitat, particularly in the upper subbasins where spring Chinook 

salmon hold, spawn, and rear. Tributary habitat improvements are crucial for 

all populations.

4. Reestablish spring Chinook salmon in the White Salmon subbasin (now that

Condit Dam has been removed) and in the Hood River subbasin.

Almost every spring Chinook salmon population is greatly affected by the loss and 

degradation of tributary habitat, and five populations—the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, 

Tilton, North Fork Lewis, and White Salmon—have experienced impacts from tributary 

dams that are comparable to or even greater than those associated with degraded 

tributary habitat. Accordingly, for most populations, the greatest gains in viability are 

expected from tributary habitat and dam passage improvements (combined with 

hatchery reintroduction programs). Exceptions are the Tilton—a stabilizing population 

that is expected to remain at its baseline status—and the Sandy and Hood populations, 

for which reductions in hatchery impacts are targeted to provide the greatest benefit. 

Although recent actions have substantially reduced harvest of spring Chinook salmon 

from baseline conditions, ancillary and precautionary actions are needed to ensure that 

harvest does not adversely affect conservation and recovery in the future. For all but the 

Tilton population, hatchery-related impacts are targeted to be reduced by half or more, 

with the largest reductions in the Sandy and Hood populations. 

Fall Chinook Recovery Analysis

Prevalent Limiting Factors: Fall Chinook Salmon

Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon’s poor status is due to a host of limiting 

factors that have affected the ESU for decades, or longer. Table ES-8 lists prevalent 

limiting factors that the management unit plans identified as having the greatest impact 

during the baseline period.

In addition, tributary hydropower dams are a primary limiting factor for the Upper 

Cowlitz and White Salmon populations, and inundation of historical spawning habitat 

by Bonneville Reservoir is a primary limiting factor for the Upper Gorge population.

 13 Some reduction in impacts on the Sandy population already have been achieved through removal of 

Marmot Dam and the Little Sandy River diversion in 2008 and protection of associated instream water 

rights for fish.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-25

Table ES-8

Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Fall Chinook Salmon during Baseline Period

Limiting Factor Populations for Which This Is a 

Primary Limiting Factor

Degraded riparian conditions along tributaries Almost all*

Channel structure and form issues

14 in tributaries and the 

estuary

Almost all

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions in tributaries Almost all

Loss/degradation of floodplain habitat in tributaries Almost all

Loss/degradation of peripheral and transitional habitats

15 in the 

estuary

Almost all

Sediment conditions in the estuary Almost all

Water quantity issues (i.e., altered hydrology) in the estuary Almost all

Direct mortality from fisheries Almost all

Reduction in population diversity as a result of stray hatchery 

fish interbreeding with natural-origin fish

Almost all

* “Almost all” means every population except one in each stratum.

Recovery Strategy: Fall Chinook Salmon

The recovery strategy for the tule fall component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon ESU is designed to restore the Coast and Cascade tule strata to a high probability 

of persistence and to improve the persistence probability of all four Gorge stratum 

populations. The strategy involves transitioning from decades of management that 

allowed habitat degradation and emphasized hatchery production of fish for harvest 

(without adequate regard to effects on natural production) to management that supports 

a naturally self-sustaining ESU. This transition will be accomplished by addressing all 

threat categories and sharing the burden of recovery across categories. The most crucial 

elements are as follows:

1. Protect and improve the Coweeman and Lewis populations, which are currently 

performing the best, by ensuring that habitat is protected and restored, that the 

proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS) is reduced, and that harvest 

rates allow for gains in productivity to translate into continued progress 

toward recovery. 

2. Fill information gaps regarding the extent of natural production and the extent of 

hatchery-origin spawners.

 14 Includes conditions such as channelization, reduced instream habitat complexity, fill and scour, and 

associated loss of spawning habitat.

15 Peripheral and transitional habitats are sloughs, side channels, wetlands, and similar features that are 

periodically inundated during high flows.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-26

3. Focus recovery efforts on populations that have the greatest prospects for 

improvement; determine whether efforts to reestablish populations are needed. 

4. Protect existing high-functioning habitat for all populations. 

5. Implement aggressive efforts to improve the quality and quantity of both 

tributary and estuarine habitat. 

6. Implement aggressive efforts to reduce the influence of hatchery fish on naturalorigin fish.

7. Adjust harvest as needed to ensure appropriate increases in naturalorigin abundance.

8. Assess habitat quantity, quality, and distribution.

In the Coast and Cascade strata, much of the gains in fall Chinook salmon viability are 

targeted to be achieved through reductions in harvest, hatchery, and habitat impacts. 

This is the case for the Grays/Chinook, Elochoman/Skamokawa, Toutle, East Fork 

Lewis, Sandy, and Washougal populations. For the Scappoose population, target status 

is expected to be achieved primarily through reductions in hatchery and harvest 

impacts. In the Gorge stratum, some threat reductions are also targeted from 

hydropower actions, as the Upper Gorge, White Salmon, and Hood populations have 

been affected by dam passage issues at Bonneville, Powerdale, and Condit dams. 

(Powerdale Dam, on the Hood River, was removed in 2010; Condit Dam was breached 

in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012). 

Impacts from multiple threat categories will need to be reduced for most populations if 

they are to achieve their target status. Exceptions are the Youngs Bay, Big Creek, Upper 

Cowlitz, and Salmon Creek populations. As stabilizing populations, the Youngs Bay, 

Upper Cowlitz, and Salmon Creek populations are not targeted for reductions in any 

threat impacts. (However, recovery actions will still be needed for these populations to 

remain at their baseline status of low [for Youngs Bay] or very low persistence 

probability.) The Salmon Creek population is not targeted for threat reductions because 

of the highly urbanized nature of the subbasin and the extent of habitat degradation 

there. Both the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations will be used to provide harvest 

opportunity through terminal fisheries targeting hatchery fish; consequently, the 

proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS) and harvest impacts in these 

populations are expected to remain high. 

Late-Fall Chinook Recovery Strategy

Prevalent Limiting Factors: Late-Fall Chinook Salmon

Table ES-9 lists prevalent limiting factors that the management unit plans identified as 

having the greatest impact on both late-fall Chinook populations during the 

baseline period.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-27

Table ES-9

Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Late-fall Chinook Salmon during Baseline Period

Limiting Factor Populations for Which This Is a 

Primary Limiting Factor

Sediment conditions in tributaries and the Columbia River 

estuary

Both populations

Water quantity issues (i.e., altered hydrology) in the estuary Both populations

Direct mortality from fisheries Both populations

In addition, primary limiting factors that affect the Sandy population only are degraded 

riparian conditions, channel structure and form issues, impaired side channel and 

wetland conditions, and loss/degradation of floodplain habitat in tributaries, along with 

reduction in population diversity as a result of stray hatchery fish interbreeding with 

natural-origin fish. 

Recovery Strategy: Late-Fall Chinook Salmon

The recovery strategy for the late-fall component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon ESU is designed to maintain the two healthy populations (North Fork Lewis and 

Sandy) and raise the persistence probability of the Sandy population from high to very 

high. Key elements of the strategy are as follows:

1. Implement the regional hatchery strategy. Minimize the impacts of hatchery 

releases of steelhead, coho, and spring Chinook salmon on late-fall Chinook 

salmon. Continue the current practice of not releasing hatchery fall Chinook

salmon into the North Fork Lewis River. 

2. Reduce harvest impacts on the Sandy late-fall population by using the same 

harvest strategies identified for tule fall Chinook salmon. Continue to manage 

fisheries to meet the spawning escapement goal for the Lewis River late-fall 

population and consider reassessing the goal as new data are acquired. 

3. Implement actions in the regional tributary and estuary habitat strategy designed 

to benefit tule fall Chinook salmon. Implement the stratum-level tributary habitat 

strategies designated for tule fall Chinook. 

Improving the persistence of the Sandy population will be accomplished primarily 

through reductions in harvest and hatchery impacts. As with spring and tule fall 

Chinook salmon, recent actions have substantially reduced harvest impacts on late-fall 

Chinook salmon over baseline conditions, but additional reductions in harvest impacts 

are identified to achieve the target status for the Sandy population. More modest 

reductions in the tributary and estuarine habitat, hydropower, and predation threat 

categories are expected to support the gains achieved through reductions in harvest and 

hatchery impacts.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-28

Recovery Analysis: Columbia River Chum

This recovery plan covers all naturally spawned Columbia River chum salmon 

(Oncorhynchus keta) populations in the lower Columbia River and its tributaries. Chum 

salmon from three hatchery programs also are part of the ESU.16

Historically, the Columbia River chum salmon ESU consisted of 17 independent 

populations. Of these, 16 were fall-run populations and one was a summer-run 

population that returned to the Cowlitz River. Columbia River chum display an “oceantype” life history, meaning that fry emigrate downstream shortly after emerging and 

rear in the Columbia River estuary before entering the ocean. Although chum salmon 

are strong swimmers, they rarely pass river blockages and waterfalls that pose no 

hindrance to other salmon or steelhead; thus, they spawn in low-gradient, low-elevation 

reaches and side channels. Spawning today is restricted largely to tributary and 

mainstem areas downstream of Bonneville Dam. Chum salmon need clean gravel for 

spawning, and spawning sites typically are associated with areas of upwelling water. 

Baseline and Target Status: Chum Salmon

Today, 15 of the 17 populations that historically made up this ESU are so depleted that 

either their baseline probability of persistence is very low or they are extirpated or 

nearly so; this is the case for all six of the Oregon populations. Currently almost all 

natural production occurs in just two populations: the Grays/Chinook and the Lower 

Gorge. All three strata in the ESU fall significantly short of the WLC TRT criteria 

for viability.

Table ES-10

Baseline and Target Status* of Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations

Stratum Population Core or Genetic 

Legacy?**

Contribution 

to Recovery Baseline Status Target Status

Coast Youngs Bay (OR) C Stabilizing VL VL

Grays/Chinook (WA) C, GL Primary M VH

Big Creek (OR) C Stabilizing VL VL

Elochoman/Skamakowa (WA) C Primary VL H

Clatskanie (OR) Primary VL H

Mill/Abernathy/Germany (WA) Primary VL H

Scappoose (OR) Primary VL H

Cascade Cowlitz - fall (WA) C Contributing VL M

Cowlitz - Summer (WA) C Contributing VL M

Kalama (WA) Contributing VL M

Lewis (WA) C Primary VL H

Salmon Creek (WA) Stabilizing VL VL

Clackamas (OR) C Contributing VL M

Sandy (OR) Primary VL H

Washougal (WA) Primary VL H+

 16 In 2010, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated a new chum salmon hatchery program at 

Big Creek Hatchery to develop chum salmon for reintroduction into Lower Columbia River tributaries in 

Oregon. NMFS has not yet evaluated this hatchery program for inclusion in the ESU.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-29

Stratum Population Core or Genetic 

Legacy?**

Contribution 

to Recovery Baseline Status Target Status

Gorge Lower Gorge (WA & OR) C, GL Primary H VH

Upper Gorge (WA & OR) Contributing VL M

* Status is equivalent to persistence probability. VL = very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high, 

VH = very high.

** C = Core populations, meaning those that historically were the most productive. G = Genetic legacy 

populations, which best represent historical genetic diversity.

Figure ES-4. Conservation Gaps for Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations 

(i.e., Difference between Baseline and Target Status)

Prevalent Limiting Factors: Chum Salmon

Columbia River chum salmon’s poor status is due to a host of limiting factors that have 

affected the ESU for decades, or longer. Table ES-11 lists prevalent limiting factors that 

the management unit plans identified as having the greatest impact during the baseline 

period.

Table ES-11

Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Chum Salmon during Baseline Period

Limiting Factor Populations for Which This Is a 

Primary Limiting Factor

Channel structure and form issues

17 in the Columbia River 

estuary

Almost all*

Loss/degradation of peripheral and transitional habitats

18 in the 

estuary

Almost all

Sediment conditions in the estuary Almost all

Water quantity issues (i.e., altered hydrology) in the estuary Almost all

 17 Includes conditions such as channelization, reduced instream habitat complexity, fill and scour, and 

associated loss of spawning habitat.

18 Peripheral and transitional habitats are sloughs, side channels, wetlands, and similar features that are 

periodically inundated during high flows.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-30

Limiting Factor Populations for Which This Is a 

Primary Limiting Factor

Degraded riparian conditions in tributaries Almost all Washington** populations

Channel structure and form issues in tributaries Almost all Washington populations

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions in tributaries Almost all Washington populations

Loss/degradation of floodplain habitat in tributaries Almost all Washington populations

* “Almost all” means every population except one in each stratum.

** Tributary habitat factors in this table are for Washington populations only because of differences in how 

Oregon and Washington recovery planners categorized limiting factors occurring in areas of tidal influence 

in the lower reaches of tributaries; see Table 8-3 of the recovery plan.

In addition, passage issues at Bonneville Dam and inundation of historical spawning 

habitat by Bonneville Reservoir are identified as primary limiting factors for the Upper 

Gorge population. 

Recovery Strategy: Chum Salmon

The ESU recovery strategy for Columbia River chum salmon focuses on improving 

tributary and estuarine habitat conditions, reducing or mitigating hydropower impacts, 

and reestablishing chum salmon populations where they may have been extirpated. The 

goal of the strategy is to increase the abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial 

structure of chum salmon populations such that the Coast and Cascade chum salmon

strata are restored to a high probability of persistence and the persistence probability of 

the two Gorge populations improves. The ESU recovery strategy has the following 

main elements:

1. Protect and improve the Grays/Chinook and Lower Gorge populations, which 

together produce the majority of Columbia River chum salmon and are the only 

populations in the ESU not currently at very high risk of extinction.

2. Identify, protect, and restore chum salmon spawning habitat in lower mainstem 

and off-channel areas of large rivers and streams that are fed by upwelling from 

intergravel flows or springs. Restore hydrologic, riparian, and sediment 

processes (e.g., large woody debris recruitment) that support the accumulation of 

spawning gravel and reduce inputs of fine sediment.

3. Restore off-channel and side-channel habitats (alcoves, wetlands, floodplains, 

etc.) in the Columbia River estuary, where chum salmon fry rely on peripheral 

and transitional habitats for extended estuarine rearing. 

4. Use hatchery reintroduction as appropriate in reestablishing chum salmon 

populations and continue using supplementation to enhance the abundance of 

the Grays/Chinook and Lower Gorge populations.

Restoring tributary spawning and estuary rearing habitat is essential in the recovery of 

Columbia River chum salmon. Although the recovery strategy includes other 

components, no other factor can effectively bring about recovery. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-31

Most of the gains in the viability of Washington chum salmon populations are targeted 

to be achieved by improving tributary and estuarine habitat. Because potentially 

manageable harvest, hatchery, and predation impacts on chum salmon already are 

relatively low, there is little opportunity to further reduce threats in these sectors. 

Hydropower actions are projected to benefit the Upper Gorge population, which is 

affected by Bonneville Dam and its reservoir. 

Oregon recovery planners developed a chum salmon recovery strategy that involves 

identifying specific habitat needs and proceeding with reintroduction, initially in the 

Coast stratum.

Recovery Analysis: Lower Columbia River Steelhead

This recovery plan addresses steelhead in the Cascade and Gorge ecozones only, 

excluding the White Salmon population and populations in the Coast ecozone. This is 

because the White Salmon population is part of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS 

(and thus is addressed in a separate recovery plan), and the Coast populations are part 

of the Southwest Washington DPS, which is not listed under the ESA. Also excluded is 

the resident, freshwater form of Oncorhynchus mykiss, which usually is called “rainbow” 

or “redband” trout. In contrast, steelhead are the anadromous form of O. mykiss, 

meaning that they spend a portion of their life cycle in the ocean but return to fresh 

water to breed. Thus, this recovery plan covers all naturally spawned anadromous 

O. mykiss populations in streams and tributaries to the Columbia River between and 

including the Cowlitz and Wind rivers in Washington and, in Oregon, between and 

including (1) the Willamette River up to Willamette Falls, and (2) the Hood River in 

Oregon. Steelhead from eight hatchery programs also are part of the DPS.19

Historically, the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS consisted of 23 independent 

populations: 17 winter-run populations and six summer-run populations. Winter and 

summer steelhead differ in spawning timing, degree of sexual maturity when returning 

to fresh water, and other characteristics. Both winter steelhead and summer steelhead 

spawn in a wide range of conditions, from large streams and rivers to small streams and 

side channels. Within the same watershed, winter and summer steelhead generally 

spawn in geographically distinct areas. Summer steelhead can often reach headwater 

areas above waterfalls that are impassable to winter steelhead during the high-velocity 

flows common during the winter-run migration. Steelhead are iteroparous, meaning 

they can spawn more than once.

Baseline and Target Status: Steelhead

Today, 16 of the 23 Lower Columbia River steelhead populations have a low or very low 

probability of persisting over the next 100 years, and six populations have a moderate 

 

19 The release of Cowlitz Hatchery winter steelhead into the Tilton River was discontinued in 2007, the 

Hood River winter steelhead program was discontinued in 2009, and the release of hatchery winter 

steelhead into the Upper Cowlitz and Cispus rivers was discontinued in 2010. In its 2011 5-year review, 

NMFS recommended removing these programs from the DPS and adding a Lewis River winter steelhead 

program that was initiated in 2009.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-32

probability of persistence. Only the summer-run Wind population is considered viable. 

All four strata in the DPS fall short of the WLC TRT criteria for viability. 

Table ES-12

Baseline and Target Status* of LCR Steelhead Populations

Stratum Population Core or Genetic 

Legacy?**

Contribution 

to Recovery

Baseline 

Status

Target 

Status

Cascade Kalama (WA) C Primary M H

summer NF Lewis (WA) Stabilizing VL VL

EF Lewis (WA) Primary VL H

Washougal (WA) C Primary M H

Gorge Wind (WA) C Primary H VH

summer Hood (OR) Primary VL H

Lower Cowlitz (WA) Contributing L M

Upper Cowlitz (WA) C, GL Primary VL H

Cispus (WA C, GL Primary VL H

Tilton (WA) Contributing VL L

SF Toutle (WA) Primary M H+

NF Toutle (WA) C Primary VL H

Coweeman (WA) Primary L H

Kalama (WA) Primary L H+

NF Lewis (WA) C Contributing VL M

EF Lewis (WA) Primary M H

Salmon Creek (WA) Stabilizing VL VL

Washougal (WA) Contributing L M

Clackamas (OR) C Primary M H

Cascade 

winter

Sandy (OR) C Primary L VH

L. Gorge (OR & WA) Primary L H

U. Gorge (OR & WA) Stabilizing L L

Gorge

winter 

Hood (OR) C, GL Primary M H

* Status is equivalent to persistence probability. VL = very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high, 

VH = very high.

** C = Core populations, meaning those that historically were the most productive. G = Genetic legacy 

populations, which best represent historical genetic diversity.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-33

Figure ES-5. Conservation Gaps for LCR Winter Steelhead Populations 

(i.e., Difference between Baseline and Target Status)

Figure ES-6. Conservation Gaps for LCR Summer Steelhead Populations 

(i.e., Difference between Baseline and Target Status)

Prevalent Limiting Factors: Steelhead

Lower Columbia River steelhead’s poor status is due to a host of limiting factors that 

have affected the ESU for decades, or longer. Tables ES-13 and ES-14 list prevalent 

limiting factors that the management unit plans identified as having the greatest impact 

during the baseline period.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-34

Table ES-13

Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Winter Steelhead during Baseline Period

Limiting Factor Populations for Which This Is a 

Primary Limiting Factor

Degraded riparian conditions along tributaries Almost all*

Channel structure and form issues

20 in tributaries and the 

Columbia River estuary

Almost all

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions in tributaries Almost all

Loss/degradation of floodplain habitat in tributaries Almost all

Sediment conditions in the estuary Almost all

Water quantity issues (i.e., altered hydrology) in the estuary Almost all

* “Almost all” means every population except one in each stratum.

Table ES-14

Prevalent Primary Limiting Factors for Summer Steelhead during Baseline Period

Limiting Factor Populations for Which This Is a 

Primary Limiting Factor

Degraded riparian conditions along tributaries Almost all*

Channel structure and form issues

21 in tributaries Almost all

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions in tributaries Almost all

Loss/degradation of floodplain habitat in tributaries Almost all

Sediment conditions in tributaries and the Columbia River 

estuary

Almost all

Water quantity issues (i.e., altered hydrology) in the estuary Almost all

* “Almost all” means every population except one in each stratum.

In addition, tributary hydropower development is a primary limiting factor for the 

North Fork Lewis summer steelhead population and several populations in the Cascade 

winter steelhead stratum, as is reduction in population diversity as a result of stray 

hatchery fish interbreeding with natural-origin fish. 

Recovery Strategy: Steelhead

The recovery strategy for the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS is aimed at restoring 

the Cascade and Gorge winter and summer strata to a high probability of persistence. 

Although the strategy involves threat reductions in all categories, the most crucial 

elements are as follows:

1. Protect favorable tributary habitat and restore degraded but potentially 

productive habitat, especially in subbasins where large improvements in 

 20 Includes conditions such as channelization, reduced instream habitat complexity, fill and scour, and 

associated loss of spawning habitat.

21 Includes conditions such as channelization, reduced instream habitat complexity, fill and scour, and 

associated loss of spawning habitat.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-35

population abundance and productivity are needed to achieve recovery goals. 

This is the case in the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, North Fork Toutle, Kalama, and 

Sandy subbasins for winter steelhead and in the East Fork Lewis and Hood 

subbasins for summer steelhead.

2. Protect and improve the South Fork Toutle, East Fork Lewis, Clackamas, and 

Hood winter steelhead populations, which currently are the best-performing 

winter populations, to a high probability of persistence. This will be 

accomplished through population-specific combinations of threat reductions, to 

include protection and restoration of tributary habitat (crucial for all except the 

Hood population), reductions in hatchery strays on the spawning grounds, 

and—for the Hood population—removal of Powerdale Dam (this was completed 

in 2010). 

3. Significantly reduce hatchery impacts on the Hood summer steelhead

population22 and, to a lesser degree, on many other populations, especially the 

Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, North Fork Lewis, and Clackamas winter 

populations and the East Fork summer population. Continue to limit hatchery 

impacts on the Kalama and Wind summer steelhead populations to improve 

population diversity.

4. Reestablish naturally spawning winter steelhead populations above tributary 

dams in the Cowlitz system (Upper Cowlitz and Cispus populations) and 

improve the status of the Tilton winter steelhead population through hatchery 

reintroductions and comprehensive threat reductions; reintroduce winter 

steelhead above dams on the North Fork Lewis River.

5. Reduce predation by birds, non-salmonid fish, and marine mammals.

Loss and degradation of tributary habitat, hatchery effects, and predation are pervasive 

threats that affect most steelhead populations, but the types of recovery actions that will 

be of most benefit vary by population. For the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, and North 

Fork Lewis winter populations, the greatest gains are expected to be achieved by 

reestablishing natural populations above tributary dams, but reductions in hatcheryand tributary habitat-related threats also will contribute significantly. For the East Fork 

Lewis summer population, improvements in tributary habitat are projected to provide 

the greatest benefit. The Sandy winter steelhead population is targeted for significant 

reductions in hatchery-related threats, but because of fairly recent changes in the 

management of the hatchery steelhead program, current stray rates in this population 

already are lower than the 10 percent called for for delisting. Hatchery- and tributary 

habitat-related actions will be of greatest benefit to Clackamas winter steelhead. 

In the Gorge strata, reductions in tributary habitat-related threats will be significant for 

the Lower and Upper Gorge winter populations, especially in Oregon. For the Hood 

 22 The Sandy winter steelhead population was also targeted for a significant reduction in hatchery impacts 

(i.e., 80 percent). However, the Oregon management unit plan states that, because of fairly recent changes in 

the management of the hatchery steelhead program, current stray rates in the Sandy winter steelhead 

population already are lower than the 10 percent called for in the threat reduction targets (ODFW 2010 p. 

196).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-36

winter population, the greatest gains in persistence probability are expected from 

reductions in hatchery- and hydropower-related threats. The Hood summer steelhead 

population is targeted for significant reductions in multiple threat categories, with 

particularly large reductions in tributary habitat- and hydropower-related threats and a 

complete elimination of hatchery threats (summer steelhead will no longer be released 

in the Hood River subbasin). 

With harvest impacts on natural-origin winter steelhead having dropped substantially 

from historical highs, further reductions in harvest impacts do not figure prominently in 

the threat reduction scenarios for most steelhead populations. The recovery strategy 

involves continued management of fisheries to limit impacts to baseline levels.

Adaptive Management and Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

The life cycles of salmon and steelhead are complex, and there is much we do not know 

about the range of factors that affect these species and how specific actions influence

their characteristics and survival. For this recovery plan to be successful, we must do 

more than implement the strategies and actions the plan calls for. We also must learn 

during implementation, continually check our progress in reaching recovery goals, and 

make adjustments as necessary. Thus, the recovery plan calls for data gathering on the 

status and trends of populations, their habitats, and sources of threats; resolution of the 

many unknowns (which are referred to as critical uncertainties); and new or continued 

research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) to assess the effectiveness of actions once 

they are implemented.

The recovery plan also incorporates adaptive management, which is the process of 

adjusting management actions and/or the overall approach to recovery based on new 

information, such as information derived from RME activities. Adaptive management 

works by offering a process for explicitly proposing, prioritizing, implementing, and 

evaluating alternative approaches and actions. This ensures that the best and most 

effective means of achieving recovery goals are used, even while scientific 

understanding of fish populations’ needs and the benefits of specific actions continues to 

change and improve.

Local recovery planners have or will develop specific RME plans—for their respective 

geographic areas—that are based on regional guidance for adaptive management and 

RME. These RME plans will guide recovery planning RME efforts and funding in each 

management unit, within a context of ongoing regional guidance and coordination.

Implementation

Recovery actions will be implemented over a 25-year period, as specified in the 

management unit plans and estuary recovery plan module. Effective implementation

will require that the recovery efforts of diverse private, local, state, tribal, and federal

parties across two states be coordinated at multiple levels.

At the management unit level, Washington’s Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board will 

lead implementation of actions in southwest Washington, and the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife implementation coordinator and stakeholder team will lead 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-37

recovery plan implementation in Oregon, supported by the governance structure of the 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. In the White Salmon, NMFS, in coordination 

with the Washington Gorge Implementation Team (WAGIT), has taken the lead in 

coordinating implementation. Each of the lead implementing organizations will develop 

a series of 3-year or 6-year implementation schedules for their respective management 

unit. Implementation schedules will identify and prioritize23 site-specific projects, 

determine costs and time frames, and identify responsible parties, based on strategies 

and actions in the recovery plan. Thus, the implementation schedules will provide more 

detail, clarity, and accountability for implementation than this recovery plan does.

At a higher level than the management units, the Lower Columbia Recovery Planning 

Steering Committee (which NMFS convened to guide development of this recovery 

plan) will lead efforts to coordinate the actions of the many entities that will play a role 

in implementation. For example, there is a need for coordination among the 

management units and the entities implementing Columbia River estuary recovery 

actions because the lower, tidal portions of the tributaries, which are within the 

management unit planning areas, overlap with the planning area of the Columbia River 

Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead. The steering committee will 

perform its coordination functions by working with subcommittees and other regional 

forums as needed. 

Finally, NMFS has a unique role in recovery plan implementation. In addition to 

ensuring that its statutory responsibilities for recovery under the ESA are met, NMFS 

will support local recovery efforts by (1) helping to coordinate and encourage recovery 

plan implementation, (2) using recovery plans to guide regulatory decision making, 

(3) providing leadership in regional research, monitoring, and evaluation forums, and 

(4) providing periodic reports on species status and trends, limiting factors, threats, and 

plan implementation status.

The good news is that some recovery actions already are taking place. Harvest rates 

have dropped significantly since the first Lower Columbia River species were listed 

under the Endangered Species Act. Reforms of hatchery practices and programs are 

being implemented throughout the Columbia Basin. Dams have been removed or 

breached on the Sandy, Hood, and White Salmon rivers, and improvements in passage 

and operations to benefit salmon and steelhead are under way at other tributary 

hydropower facilities and in the Federal Columbia River hydropower system. Tributary 

and estuary habitat protection and restoration projects are under way. However, 

considerable additional work is needed to meet the goals of this plan. Habitat activities 

in particular need to be scaled up if they are to provide the needed benefits.

Conclusion

Recovery of ESA-listed Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead will require actions 

that conserve and restore the key biological, ecological, and landscape processes that 

support the ecosystems that salmonid species depend on. These measures will require 

 23 Some prioritization work already has been done, in that the management unit plans identify high-priority 

reaches for tributary habitat protection and restoration actions. In addition, the Oregon and White Salmon 

management unit plans offer some guidance on how actions might be prioritized across threat categories. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

ES-38

implementation of specific tributary and estuary habitat protection and restoration 

actions; changes in management of harvest, hatchery, and hydropower programs; and 

predation control. Development of an effective implementation framework, coupled 

with a responsive RME and adaptive management plan, provides the best assurance that 

this recovery plan will be fully implemented and effective. The plan’s identification of 

target statuses, primary and secondary limiting factors that have caused gaps between 

baseline and target status, and actions to close those gaps is intended to aid 

implementing entities as they take actions that will lead to delisting and, eventually, 

achievement of broad sense recovery goals. The keys to long-term success will be full 

funding and implementation of this recovery plan and voluntary participation of 

residents of the Lower Columbia region. It is only through the involvement of all of 

those who live and work in this region that recovery will be achieved. 

Key Documents

Oregon Lower Columbia Conservation and Recovery for Salmon and Steelhead

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2010

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.asp

ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River Watershed

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2013

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_plannin

g_and_implementation/lower_columbia_river/lower_columbia_river_recovery_pla

n_for_salmon_steelhead.html

Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2010

http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/Recovery%20Plans/RP%20Frontpage.htm

Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_plannin

g_and_implementation/recovery_plans_supporting_documents.html

Recovery Plan Module: Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower Projects

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_plannin

g_and_implementation/recovery_plans_supporting_documents.html

2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion and 2010 Supplement

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008 and 2010

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/hydropower/fcrps_opinion/federal_columbia_river_po

wer_system.html
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-1

1. Introduction

This is a plan for the protection and restoration of Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss), Lower 

Columbia River coho salmon (O. kisutch), and Columbia River chum salmon (O. keta), all 

of which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). These 

salmon and steelhead, which spawn and rear in the lower Columbia River and its 

tributaries in Oregon and Washington, are among 19 evolutionarily significant units 

(ESUs) or distinct population segments (DPSs) of salmon and steelhead in the Pacific 

Northwest that have been listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, out of a 

total of 40 salmon and steelhead ESUs and DPSs in the region.1 An ESU or DPS is a 

group of Pacific salmon or steelhead, respectively, that is discrete from other groups of 

the same species and that represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy 

of the species. Under the Endangered Species Act, each ESU or DPS is treated as a 

species.2

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) is required, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, to develop recovery plans for marine species listed under the ESA.3

Recovery plans identify actions needed to restore threatened and endangered species to 

the point that they no longer need the protections of the ESA. A recovery plan serves as 

a road map for species recovery—it lays out where we need to go and how best to get 

there. Without a plan to organize, coordinate, and prioritize the many possible recovery 

actions on the part of federal, state, and local governments, tribal agencies, watershed 

councils and districts, and private citizens, our efforts may be inefficient or even 

ineffective. Prompt development and implementation of a recovery plan will help target 

limited resources effectively. Although recovery plans are guidance documents rather 

than regulatory documents, the ESA envisions recovery plans as the central organizing 

tool for guiding each species’ recovery process. NMFS developed this ESU-level 

recovery plan by synthesizing material from (1) three geographically based and locally 

developed recovery plans for Oregon, White Salmon, and southwest Washington 

populations of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead, (2) related recovery plan 

modules, and (3) additional analyses as appropriate (see Sections 1.5.2 and 1.5.3).

Over the course of their life cycles, Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead use 

habitats across a wide geographic range. They spawn and rear in the upper, middle, and 

lower reaches of freshwater tributaries to the Columbia River and in parts of the 

Columbia River estuary and lower mainstem. They then migrate as juveniles 

downstream through the tributaries and mainstem to the estuary and ocean. After 

 1 For updates on the number of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, see the “Snapshot” link at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/.

2 A DPS is defined based on discreteness in behavioral, physiological, and morphological characteristics, 

whereas the definition of an ESU emphasizes genetic and reproductive isolation. (For a fuller explanation, 

see Section 1.4.4.)

3 As anadromous species whose life cycles encompass freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems, salmon 

and steelhead fall under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Steelhead, which are the migratory form of Oncorhynchus 

mykiss, are distinct from rainbow trout, the resident form of O. mykiss. Rainbow trout are under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This recovery plan addresses steelhead and not rainbow 

trout, as is consistent with the ESA listing decision. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-2

spending years in the ocean, adults migrate back to their natal streams to spawn. The 

long-term biological success of salmon and steelhead is based on their ability to make 

use of the diverse habitats from river headwaters to the ocean. Thus, salmon and 

steelhead’s resilience in the face of change depends on maintaining genetic, phenotypic, 

and behavioral diversity over a wide geographic area. 

Human activities have dramatically changed the conditions encountered by Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead. Although many of the deleterious effects on fish 

are due to past practices, current human uses of the land and river systems continue to 

threaten the viability of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead across much of 

their range. In many locations, urban and rural development, agricultural and forest 

management practices, dredging, and passage obstructions continue to put pressure on 

salmon and steelhead, whose habitat already has been reduced in amount and quality as 

a result of extensive loss of channel function and floodplain connectivity. Habitat 

changes have exacerbated predation by fish, birds, and marine mammals as salmon and 

steelhead migrate through the lower Columbia River and estuary. Hydropower 

development has altered river flow, which is a significant force in structuring aquatic 

and riparian habitats. In addition to eliminating key habitats, hydropower development

has altered salmonid food sources, changed freshwater and saltwater balances in the 

Columbia River estuary, reduced access to habitat in the estuary, and disrupted the 

timing of salmonid migrations. Harvest mortality of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead 

occurs in various fisheries—commercial, tribal, and recreational—in the Pacific Ocean, in 

the lower Columbia River, and in tributaries to the Columbia. Lastly, hatchery-origin 

fish pose threats in terms of competition, predation, genetic effects, and mixed-stock 

harvest.

Fortunately, scientific understanding of the threats to Lower Columbia River salmon 

and steelhead is growing, as is interest in aligning land use, hatchery priorities, harvest 

practices, and hydropower operations with conservation objectives for salmon and 

steelhead. More people now recognize the opportunities and benefits of actively 

protecting and restoring stream corridors, wetlands, stream flows, and other natural 

features that support native fish and wildlife populations. Management of upland areas 

is changing to protect or restore watershed function, and cities are undertaking urban 

watershed protection and restoration. Recovery planning is an opportunity to search for 

common ground, to organize protection and restoration of salmonid habitat, to reduce 

other threats to the species, and to secure the economic and cultural benefits that accrue 

to human communities from healthy watersheds and rivers.

The primary goal of ESA recovery plans is for species to reach the point at which they no 

longer need the protection of the Endangered Species Act and thus can be delisted. With 

salmon and steelhead, the final recovery plan is based on locally developed recovery 

plans. These plans address not just delisting but also local interests and needs based on 

social, economic, and ecological values. To address these interests, local recovery 

planners have included “broad sense goals” that go beyond the requirements for 

delisting. Although the broad sense goals in the locally produced salmon and steelhead 

recovery plans may be stated in slightly different ways, they usually share some 

combination of the following elements: ensuring long-term persistence of viable 

populations of naturally produced salmon and steelhead distributed across their native 

range, enjoying the social and cultural benefits of meaningful harvest opportunities that 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-3

are sustainable over the long term, and pursuing salmon recovery using an open and 

cooperative process that respects local customs and benefits local communities and 

economies. 

The broad sense goal of ensuring the long-term persistence of viable populations of 

naturally produced salmon and steelhead distributed across their native range is 

consistent with ESA delisting, and NMFS’ approach to recovery planning has been to 

use open and collaborative processes with extensive local engagement. NMFS is 

supportive of the broad sense recovery goals in locally developed plans and believes 

that the most expeditious way to achieve them is by achieving viability of natural 

populations and delisting. Upon delisting, NMFS will work with co-managers and local 

stakeholders, using our non-ESA authorities, to pursue broad sense recovery goals while 

continuing to maintain robust natural populations. Recovery goals and delisting criteria 

are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

1.1 ESA Requirements

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

each species listed as endangered or threatened under the statute. 

ESA section 4(a)(1) lists factors for delisting that are to be addressed in recovery plans:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range

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

C. Disease or predation

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting the species’ continued existence

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

all of the following:

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

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

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

... that the species be removed from the list

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

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

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

with a clear understanding of the goals and strategies needed to recover a listed species 

and the science underlying those goals and strategies (NMFS 2004a).

Once a species is deemed recovered and therefore removed from the list, section 4(g) of 

the ESA requires monitoring of the species for a period of not less than 5 years to ensure 

that it retains its recovered status. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-4

1.2 How NMFS Intends to Use the Plan

Although recovery plans are not regulatory, they are important tools that help to do the 

following:

• Provide context for regulatory decisions

• Guide decision making by federal, state, tribal, and local jurisdictions

• Provide criteria for status reporting and delisting decisions

• Organize, prioritize, and sequence recovery actions

• Organize research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts

NMFS will encourage federal agencies and non-federal jurisdictions to take recovery 

plans under serious consideration as they make the following sorts of decisions and 

allocate their resources:

• Actions carried out to meet federal ESA section 7(a)(1) obligations

• Actions that are subject to ESA sections 4d, 7(a)(2), or 10

• Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans and permit requests

• Harvest plans and permits

• Selection and prioritization of subbasin planning actions

• Development of research, monitoring, and evaluation programs

• Revision of land use and resource management plans

• Other natural resource decisions at the state, tribal, and local levels

NMFS will emphasize recovery plan information in ESA section 7(a)(2) consultations, 

section 10 permit development, and application of section 4(d) rules by considering the 

following:

• The importance of affected populations to listed species’ viability

• The importance of the action area to affected populations and species’ viability

• How LFs identified in recovery plans inform analysis of the effects of the action on 

critical habitat

• The relation of the action to recovery strategies and management actions

• The relation of the action to the research, monitoring, and evaluation plan for the 

affected species

In implementing these programs, recovery plans will be used as a reference and a source 

of context, expectations, and goals. NMFS staff will encourage the federal “action 

agencies” to describe in their biological assessments how their proposed actions will 

affect specific populations and limiting factors identified in the recovery plans, and to 

describe any mitigating measures and voluntary recovery activities in the action area.

1.3 Geographic Setting 

With few exceptions, this recovery plan covers naturally produced and some artificially 

propagated salmon and steelhead in the Lower Columbia recovery subdomain, meaning 

the area that is drained by the streams and rivers in the lower Columbia Basin. This 

includes the Columbia River estuary and lower mainstem, the lower Willamette River 

below Willamette Falls, and all Columbia River tributaries downstream from and 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-5

including the White Salmon River in Washington and the Hood River in Oregon. The 

plan does not cover steelhead populations in tributaries downstream of the Willamette 

River in Oregon and the Cowlitz River in Washington (these are part of the Southwest 

Washington steelhead DPS, which is not ESA listed),4 steelhead in the White Salmon 

and Little White Salmon rivers (which are part of the Middle Columbia DPS),5 salmon 

and steelhead populations in the upper Willamette River and its tributaries (which are 

part of the Upper Willamette ESU), and spring Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River 

(also part of the Upper Willamette ESU). Listed ESUs in the upper Willamette are 

addressed in a separate recovery plan.

1.3.1 Topography and Ecological Zones

The lower Columbia Basin is geographically and ecologically diverse. Draining 8,200 

square miles, it spans parts of two states and two mountain ranges: the Coast Range and 

the Cascades. Elevations range from sea level (at the mouth of the Columbia River) to 

14,410 feet (at the summit of Mt. Rainier). Topography includes low-elevation tidally 

influenced floodplains, which are where most of the urban and agricultural 

development has occurred. Higher elevations are characterized by alluvial valleys; 

steep, heavily timbered mountains; and volcanic peaks, specifically Mounts Rainier, 

St. Helens, and Adams in Washington and Mt. Hood in Oregon. Over geologic time the 

watersheds of the lower Columbia Basin have been shaped by volcanic, glacial, and 

alluvial processes, such as flooding, erosion, and sedimentation, and these forces 

continue to influence habitat conditions. As an example, volcanic activity has played a 

significant role in structuring habitat as recently as 1980, when Mount St. Helens 

erupted. Together, the various habitats in the region—from tidal marshes to highelevation coniferous forests—support more than a dozen fish and wildlife species that 

are officially threatened, endangered, or of other special conservation concern.

For purposes of salmon and steelhead recovery planning, the lower Columbia Basin is 

divided into three ecological zones—Coast Range, Cascade, and Columbia Gorge—that 

were adapted in part from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ecoregions 

(Omernik 1987, Myers et al. 2006). Ecological zones delineate major geographic areas 

within the ranges of the ESUs and DPS that have distinct environmental characteristics, 

such as elevation, soil type, vegetative land cover, rainfall, and climate. Each ecological 

zone spans the Columbia River and includes parts of both Oregon and Washington. 

The individual subbasins in each ecological zone are shown in Table 1-1.

 4 Steelhead populations within the Coast ecozone are addressed, however, in the Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans to address state planning needs.

5 The White Salmon and Little White Salmon steelhead populations are addressed in a separate species-level 

recovery plan, the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan (NMFS 

2009a). However, recovery actions for the White Salmon population of Mid-Columbia steelhead are 

included in the White Salmon management unit plan (ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River 

Watershed, NMFS 2013; see Appendix C of this recovery plan) because this population shares geography 

with Lower Columbia River coho and Chinook salmon and Columbia River chum in the White Salmon 

subbasin.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-6

Table 1-1

Lower Columbia Subbasins, by State and Ecological Zone 

Ecological Zone Oregon Subbasins Washington Subbasins

Coast Range Youngs Bay

Big Creek 

Clatskanie

Scappoose 

Estuary tributaries: Chinook, Wallacut, and 

Deep 

Grays

Elochoman

Skamakowa

Mill, Abernathy, and Germany creeks

Cascade Clackamas

Sandy

Cowlitz (Lower Cowlitz, Upper Cowlitz, 

Cispus, Tilton)

Coweeman

Toutle

Kalama

North Fork Lewis

East Fork Lewis

Salmon Creek

Washougal

Gorge Lower Gorge and Upper 

Gorge tributaries 

(divided by Bonneville 

Dam)

Hood 

Lower Gorge tributaries (including Wind and 

Little White Salmon)

Upper Gorge tributaries (above Bonneville 

Dam)

White Salmon

Ecological zones are considered a meaningful structure to use in recovery planning 

because salmon and steelhead populations in different zones exhibit differences in life 

history characteristics. In addition, given the different climates, geology, and ecological 

processes in each zone, populations in different zones are unlikely to be affected by the 

same catastrophic event. 

1.3.2 Climate

The lower Columbia Basin has a typical Pacific Northwest maritime climate, with cool, 

dry summers and wet, mild winters. Precipitation patterns are heavily influenced by the 

Coast and Cascade mountain ranges. In the Coast Range ecological zone, precipitation 

averages 80 to 95 inches per year, with the vast majority occurring as rain between 

October and March (Myers et al. 2006). The Cascade zone sees greater variation in 

precipitation, from 45 to 150 inches annually (Myers et al. 2006). Rain predominates at 

middle and lower elevations in the Cascade zone, while snow and freezing temperatures 

are common at high elevations. As in the Coast Range zone, most of the precipitation in 

the Cascade zone occurs between October and March. 

The Columbia Gorge ecological zone has a transitional climate between the highprecipitation area of the Cascades and the drier Columbia Plateau to the east (Myers et 

al. 2006). Rain shadow effects keep precipitation in the eastern portion of this zone 

relatively low—to an annual mean of 30 inches in Hood River, Oregon, for example 

(Western Regional Climate Center 2003). Cooler winter temperatures can occur in this 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-7

zone as the result of the influx of cold continental air masses from the east (Welch et al. 

2002). 

1.3.3 Land Uses and Economy

Land uses in the lower Columbia Basin vary from forestry and agriculture to urban and 

rural residential development. Much of the upper portions of the region’s watersheds 

are forested and managed for timber production. In the Coast Range zone this is usually 

through private ownership of industrial forests; in the Cascade and Columbia Gorge 

zones, federal or state ownership of forest land is more common. Within the Cascade 

zone, forest land in the Coweeman, Toutle, Kalama, lower North Fork Lewis, Salmon 

Creek, and Washougal subbasins is under predominately state or private ownership, 

while forest land in the upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, upper North Fork Lewis, East 

Fork Lewis, Clackamas, and Sandy subbasins is largely federally owned. Federal 

ownership in the region includes portions of two national forests (Gifford Pinchot and 

Mt. Hood), three wilderness areas (Indian Heaven, Salmon-Huckleberry, and Mt. Hood), 

and other specially managed lands (e.g., Mt. Rainier National Park, Mount St. Helens 

National Volcanic Monument, and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area). 

Large urban and residential zones have developed in lower elevation valley floor areas 

along the Columbia River and I-5 corridor from Portland, Oregon, to Longview, 

Washington (LCFRB 2010a). The lower reaches of the Salmon Creek and Clackamas 

River subbasins, in particular, along with smaller drainages near the city of Portland 

such as Johnson Creek and Kellogg Creek, are heavily urbanized. High technology, 

manufacturing, and professional services support the economy of the area’s two major 

population centers: Portland, Oregon (the state’s largest city), and Vancouver, 

Washington (fourth largest city in Washington). Dozens of smaller cities and towns are 

located in the more rural portions of the region, which has a total human population of 

more than 2.5 million. Other common land uses in the lower reaches of most subbasins 

are rural residential development and agriculture, in the form of fruit and vegetable 

crops, nursery stock, and beef and dairy cattle. 

Bonneville is the only dam on the lower mainstem of the Columbia River, but major 

hydropower or flood control facilities are located on a number of tributaries. Interstate 

Highway 84, the Union Pacific Railroad line, and the Columbia River constitute a key 

east-west transportation corridor. Five deep-water ports serve a shipping industry that 

transports 30 million tons of goods annually. Six major pulp mills contribute to the 

region’s economy and, until the early 2000s, aluminum smelters along the Columbia 

River produced 40 percent of the country’s aluminum. Commercial and recreational 

fishing continue to support some local communities, and outdoor recreation in general 

(fishing, wildlife observation, hunting, boating, hiking, and windsurfing) is a growing 

economic influence. 

1.3.4 Human Population 

An estimated 5 million people live in the Columbia Basin, and many more are expected 

to move to the area in the coming decades. Population forecasts predict that, by the end 

of the twenty-first century, between 40 million and 100 million people will be living in 

the region (National Research Council 2004). Expected population growth rates vary 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-8

throughout the area. However, some communities—both urban and rural—can expect 

their populations to double between 2000 and 2020. Significant growth also is projected 

for unincorporated areas. In Oregon, particularly fast population growth is predicted in 

Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Hood River, and Multnomah counties—areas that 

support Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead. The population of these counties 

is expected to increase by 41 percent from 2003 to 2040 (State of Oregon Office of 

Economic Analysis 2004). In Washington, the populations of Clark and Cowlitz counties 

are projected to grow by 65 and 53 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2030 (Washington 

State Department of Transportation). 

1.4 Species Covered by the Plan

Of the 19 ESUs or DPSs of salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest that have been 

listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, four occur in the lower Columbia 

Basin and are addressed in this plan: Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, steelhead, 

and coho salmon, and Columbia River chum salmon. 

Because ESA recovery is predicated on having enough natural production for the ESU to 

be self-sustaining, natural populations are the primary focus of most of the analyses and 

recovery actions in this plan. However, NMFS recognizes that in certain circumstances, 

hatchery populations are closely related to local natural populations and are 

representative of the genetic legacy of the ESU or DPS in question. NMFS’ 2005 hatchery 

listing policy provides that the agency will include in ESUs or DPSs hatchery programs 

that are no more than moderately divergent from a natural population that is included 

in the ESU or DPS (70 Federal Register 37204) For this reason, each of the species 

described below consists of both natural- and hatchery-origin fish.

1.4.1 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon ESU

The Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch) was listed as 

threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act on June 28, 2005 (70 Federal 

Register 37160). The ESU includes the following:

• All naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in the lower Columbia River and 

its tributaries, from the mouth of the Columbia upstream to and including the Hood 

River (in Oregon) and the White Salmon River (in Washington), and including the 

Willamette River up to Willamette Falls

• Coho salmon from 25 artificial propagation programs6

1.4.2 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU

The Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU (O. tshawytscha) was listed as 

threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act on March 24, 1999 (64 Federal 

Register 14308). The listing was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 (70 Federal Register 37160). 

The Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU includes the following:

 6 For a list of the hatchery programs included in the ESU, along with changes that NMFS proposed in its 

2011 5-year review of the ESU’s status, see Section 6.1.2.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-9

• All naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from the Columbia River 

and its tributaries from the river’s mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to and 

including the Hood River in Oregon and the White Salmon River in Washington, 

including the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, but excluding springrun Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River7

• Chinook salmon from 17 artificial propagation programs8

1.4.3 Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU

The Columbia River chum salmon ESU (O. keta) was listed as threatened on March 25, 

1999 (64 Federal Register 14507). The listing was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 (70 Federal 

Register 37160).

The Columbia River chum salmon ESU includes the following:

• All naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River and its 

tributaries in Oregon and Washington9

• Chum salmon from three artificial propagation programs10

1.4.4 Lower Columbia River Steelhead DPS

“Steelhead” are the anadromous (migratory) form of the biological species Oncorhynchus 

mykiss. Rainbow trout are the non-anadromous (resident) form of O. mykiss. NMFS 

originally listed Lower Columbia River steelhead as threatened on March 29, 1998, 

under the ESU policy (63 Federal Register 13347). NMFS revised the listing on January 5, 

2006 (71 Federal Register 8844), this time applying the DPS policy (61 Federal Register

4722).11 This recovery plan addresses steelhead only, not rainbow trout (which are under 

the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). To avoid confusion, references to 

ESUs in this recovery plan should be understood to include the steelhead DPS as well.

 7 Spring Chinook salmon in the Clackamas subbasin are part of the Upper Willamette River spring Chinook 

ESU. Lower Columbia River coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, and fall Chinook salmon also occur in 

the Clackamas subbasin. For planning purposes, Oregon addressed all the Clackamas populations, 

including Clackamas River spring Chinook salmon, in its Lower Columbia recovery planning process 

(ODFW 2010). For ESA purposes, the Clackamas River spring Chinook salmon population is addressed in 

the Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead (ODFW and NMFS 

2011)

8 For a list of the hatchery programs included in the ESU, along with changes that NMFS proposed in its 

2011 ESA 5-year review, see Section 7.1.2.

9 The historical upstream boundary for chum salmon is generally considered to have been Celilo Falls, 

which historically was located approximately where The Dalles Dam is located.

10 For a list of the hatchery programs included in the ESU, see Section 8.1.2. 

11 The ESA allows listing agencies to list at the level of a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment. 

For salmon, NMFS applies its ESU policy and treats ESUs as distinct population segments. For steelhead 

(O. mykiss) NMFS shares jurisdiction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2006, NMFS and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made a determination to apply the DPS policy to O. mykiss. The DPS policy 

recognizes discreteness in behavioral, physiological, and morphological characteristics as contributing to the 

distinctness of a population segment, whereas the ESU policy emphasizes genetic and reproductive 

isolation. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-10

Steelhead found within the geographical boundaries of the Lower Columbia recovery 

subdomain fall into three separate DPSs as defined by NMFS: Lower Columbia, Middle 

Columbia, and Southwest Washington. The Middle Columbia DPS includes steelhead 

from the White Salmon and Little White Salmon rivers, while the Southwest Washington 

DPS includes steelhead from the Grays and Elochoman rivers and Skamakowa, Mill, 

Abernathy, and Germany creeks in Washington, and from the Youngs Bay, Big Creek,

Clatskanie, and Scappoose subbasins in Oregon. 

This recovery plan addresses steelhead from the Lower Columbia DPS only, not 

populations from the Middle Columbia and Southwest Washington DPSs.12 Specifically, 

the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS includes the following:

• All naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss populations below natural and 

manmade impassable barriers in streams and tributaries to the Columbia River 

between and including the Cowlitz and Wind rivers in Washington 

• All naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss populations below natural and 

manmade impassable barriers in streams and tributaries to the Columbia River 

between and including (1) the Willamette River up to Willamette Falls, and (2) the 

Hood River in Oregon

• Steelhead from 10 artificial propagation programs13

1.5 Context of Plan Development 

This plan is the product of a collaborative process initiated by NMFS that involves the 

State of Washington, regional salmon recovery organizations within Washington (the 

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, in particular), the State of Oregon (led by the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, with extensive participation by the Oregon 

Governor’s Natural Resources Office), the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, 

regional stakeholder teams within Oregon, other federal and state agencies, tribal and 

local governments, representatives of industry and environmental groups, and the 

public. 

While NMFS is directly responsible for ESA recovery planning for salmon and 

steelhead, the agency believes that ESA recovery plans for salmon and steelhead should 

 12 The Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS, which includes the White Salmon population, is addressed in a 

separate recovery plan, the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan

(National Marine Fisheries Service [Northwest Region] November 2009). Steelhead in the Youngs Bay, Big 

Creek, Grays, Elochoman, Skamakowa, Clatskanie, Mill, Abernathy, Germany, and Scappoose watersheds 

are part of the Southwest Washington DPS, which is not listed under the ESA(61 Federal Register 41541). 

However, these populations are included in the Oregon and Washington management unit plans because 

their status needs to be improved, they share geographic range and life history traits with the ESA-listed 

Lower Columbia River species, and they are expected to benefit from recovery actions targeted at the listed 

species. Similarly, the White Salmon management unit plan (NMFS 2013) covers the White Salmon 

steelhead population, which is part of the Mid-Columbia DPS, because of this population’s shared 

geography with the White Salmon coho, Chinook, and chum salmon populations, all of which are part of 

the Lower Columbia River ESUs. 

13 For a list of the hatchery programs included in the DPS, along with changes that NMFS proposed in its 

2011 ESA 5-year review, see Section 9.1.2.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-11

be based on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts 

already under way throughout the region. Local support of recovery plans by those 

whose activities directly affect the listed species, and whose actions will be most affected 

by recovery efforts, is essential. NMFS therefore supports and participates in locally led 

collaborative efforts to develop recovery plans that involve local communities; state, 

tribal, and federal entities; and other stakeholders. 

NMFS developed this recovery plan with assistance from the Lower Columbia Recovery 

Plan Steering Committee, a group convened by NMFS (see Chapter 11) to provide input 

to the ESU-level plan. NMFS developed this plan by drawing upon the best available 

scientific information provided by three regional recovery plans, related recovery plan 

modules, the work of the Willamette-Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team (see 

below) and technical experts from NMFS, Washington, Oregon, the Yakama Nation, and 

regional planning groups. The draft plan went through multiple reviews and revisions 

in response to comments from both technical reviewers and steering committee 

members and then was further revised in response to comments received during two 

public review periods in 2012. 

1.5.1 Recovery Domains and Technical Recovery Teams

Currently, there are 19 ESA-listed ESUs and DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in the 

Pacific Northwest. NMFS’ Northwest Region also shares jurisdiction of an additional 

ESU—the Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon—with the agency’s 

Southwest Region. For the purpose of recovery planning for these species, the 

Northwest Region designated five geographically based “recovery domains”: the 

Interior Columbia, Willamette-Lower Columbia, Puget Sound, Oregon Coast, and 

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast domains (see Figure 1-1). NMFS’ 

Northwest Region delineated these domains by considering ESU or DPS boundaries, 

ecosystem boundaries, and local planning units. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-12

Figure 1-1. NMFS Northwest Region Recovery Domains 

In the case of the Willamette-Lower Columbia domain, the domain was further divided 

into two subdomains to accommodate different planning processes and timelines. The 

range of the Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead ESUs and DPS is within the 

Lower Columbia subdomain of the Willamette-Lower Columbia domain (see Figure 1-

2). 

For each domain, NMFS appointed a team of scientists who have geographic and species 

expertise to provide a solid scientific foundation for recovery plans. The charge of each 

Technical Recovery Team (TRT) was to define the historical population structure of each 

ESU or DPS, to recommend biological viability criteria for each ESU or DPS and its 

component populations, to provide scientific support to local and regional recovery 

planning efforts, and to provide scientific evaluations of proposed recovery plans. The 

Willamette-Lower Columbia TRT (WLC TRT) was formed in May 2000 and included 

representatives from NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

the University of Portland, and a private consultant. 

Each TRT used the same biological principles to develop its recommended ESU and 

population viability criteria; these criteria will be used in combination with criteria 

based on mitigation of the factors for decline to determine whether a species has 

recovered sufficiently to be downlisted or delisted. The biological principles that 

underlie the viability criteria are described in the NMFS technical memorandum Viable 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-13

Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 

2000). A viable ESU or DPS is naturally self-sustaining over the long term. McElhany et 

al. describe viable salmonid populations (VSP) in terms of four parameters: abundance, 

population productivity or growth rate, population spatial structure, and life history 

and genetic diversity. 

Each TRT’s recommendations are based on the VSP framework and considerations 

related to data availability, the unique biological characteristics of the ESU or DPS and 

the habitats in the domain, and the TRT members’ collective experience and expertise. 

Although NMFS has encouraged the TRTs to develop regionally specific approaches for 

evaluating viability and identifying factors limiting recovery, each TRT was working 

from a common scientific foundation to ensure that the recovery plans are scientifically 

sound and based on consistent biological principles.

TRT recommendations were used by NMFS and local planning groups to develop goals 

for the recovery plans. As the agency with ESA jurisdiction for salmon and steelhead, 

NMFS makes final determinations of ESA delisting criteria. 

1.5.2 Management Units and Integration of Management Unit Plans

In each domain, NMFS collaborates with other federal agencies and state, tribal, and 

local entities to develop planning forums appropriate to the domain, building to the 

extent possible on ongoing, locally led recovery efforts. These planning forums use the 

TRT and other technical resources to agree on recovery goals and limiting factors and 

then to develop locally appropriate and locally supported recovery actions needed to 

achieve recovery goals. Although the planning forums were working from a consistent 

set of assumptions regarding needed recovery plan elements, the process by which they 

develop those elements—and the form those elements take—may differ among 

domains.

The structure of recovery planning in the Willamette-Lower Columbia recovery domain, 

which includes parts of Washington and Oregon, differs in the two states. To 

accommodate the different planning efforts and jurisdictional boundaries, NMFS 

partitioned the domain into four management units: Washington (the portion of the 

Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS that occurs within the planning 

area of Washington’s Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board), White Salmon (the White 

Salmon subbasin in Washington), Oregon Lower Columbia (the portion of the Lower 

Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS that occurs within Oregon), and Upper 

Willamette (predominantly the Willamette Basin above Willamette Falls). (See Figure 1-

2.)
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-14

Figure 1-2. Management Units of the Willamette-Lower Columbia Recovery Domain

A locally developed recovery plan has been completed for each of these management 

units. This ESU-level recovery plan is a synthesis of relevant information from three of 

the management unit plans—Washington, White Salmon, and Oregon Lower Columbia. 

The three management unit plans and their associated planning processes are described 

below. 

1.5.2.1 Washington Management Unit Recovery Plan

The recovery plan for the Washington management unit covers the portion of the Lower 

Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS that occurs in Washington within the 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-15

planning area of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB), which was 

established by Washington statute in 1998 to oversee and coordinate salmon and 

steelhead recovery efforts in the lower Columbia region of Washington. The LCFRB 

comprises representatives from the state legislature, city and county governments, the 

Cowlitz Tribe, the environmental community, hydroelectric utilities, and concerned 

citizens.

The LCFRB led and coordinated a collaborative process to develop the Washington 

management unit plan, titled the Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & 

Wildlife Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2010a). Partners in the planning process included federal

agencies, tribal governments, Washington state agencies, regional organizations, and 

city and county governments. In addition, workshops, presentations, and public 

comment periods offered opportunities for broader community and public input. The 

resulting document is an integrated plan that serves planning needs associated with the 

Endangered Species Act, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s fish and 

wildlife subbasin planning process, and state salmon recovery and watershed planning. 

The plan is intended to protect and restore native fish, aquatic habitats, and sensitive 

wildlife species in Washington’s lower Columbia River watersheds. In February 2006, 

NMFS approved the December 2004 version of the plan as an interim regional recovery 

plan for the listed salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS. In May 2010, the LCFRB completed a 

revision of its earlier plan. This ESU-level recovery plan includes the Washington Lower 

Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2010a) as Appendix

B.14

1.5.2.2 White Salmon Management Unit Recovery Plan

The recovery plan for the White Salmon management unit covers the portions of the 

Lower Columbia River Chinook, coho, and chum salmon ESUs that occur in the White 

Salmon subbasin in Washington. It also covers steelhead in the White Salmon subbasin, 

which are part of the ESA-listed Middle Columbia River DPS and are addressed in the 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan (NMFS 

2009a). 

In the absence of a local planning forum for salmon recovery, NMFS developed the 

White Salmon management unit recovery plan for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in 

the White Salmon subbasin in cooperation with the Yakama Nation, Klickitat County, 

WDFW, and other stakeholders. The plan, titled ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon 

River Watershed (NMFS 2013) is included in this ESU-level recovery plan as Appendix

C.15

In 2009, NMFS, in coordination with the Yakama Nation, WDFW, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Klickitat County, Washington Gorge Conservation District, Washington 

Department of Ecology, and other local groups, established the Washington Gorge 

Implementation Team to support continued coordination of salmon and steelhead 

recovery efforts.

 14 The Washington management unit plan is available at http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/default1.htm.

15 The White Salmon management unit plan is available at www.nwr.noaa.gov.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-16

1.5.2.3 Oregon Lower Columbia Management Unit Recovery Plan

The recovery plan for the Oregon Lower Columbia management unit covers the portion 

of the Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS that occurs within 

Oregon. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) led development of this 

plan in collaboration with NMFS and numerous stakeholders, including other federal

agencies, state agencies, local governments, tribes, industry and environmental 

representatives, and the public. An expert panel, stakeholder team, and planning team 

provided additional input and guidance. The resulting plan serves both as a federal

recovery plan under the ESA and a State of Oregon conservation plan under Oregon’s 

Native Fish Conservation Policy. The plan also influences actions implemented for the 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, some of which are coordinated by the Oregon 

Watershed Enhancement Board. This ESU-level plan includes the Lower Columbia River 

Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon and Steelhead (ODFW 

2010) as Appendix A.16

1.5.2.4 Relationship Between Management Unit Plans and ESU-Level Plan

This ESU-level recovery plan for the Lower Columbia River ESUs and DPS is a synthesis 

of the Washington, White Salmon, and Oregon Lower Columbia management unit 

plans, additional analyses as appropriate, and related recovery plan modules that 

address estuary habitat and hydropower (see Section 1.5.3). The ESU-level recovery plan 

provides an ESU-level perspective on the baseline status of the Lower Columbia River 

ESUs and DPS, goals and delisting criteria, limiting factors, scenarios for reducing 

threats, recovery actions, implementation, and research, monitoring and evaluation. As 

required by the ESA, this ESU-level recovery plan fully addresses the recovery needs of 

the Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS, throughout their life cycle 

and across their geographic range, which encompasses multiple management units. 

The more detailed Washington, White Salmon, and Oregon Lower Columbia 

management unit recovery plans are part of this ESU-level plan, which includes them as 

appendices. By doing so, the ESU-level plan endorses the management unit plans’

recommendations and acknowledges that certain recovery decisions (such as decisions 

about site-specific habitat actions) are most appropriately left to local recovery planners 

and implementers, as represented in the management unit plans. Where there are 

differences between the ESU-level plan and the management unit plans that affect 

regulatory decisions, management decisions, and implementation of recovery actions, 

NMFS will coordinate with the management unit leads (Washington’s Lower Columbia 

Fish Recovery Board, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington 

Gorge Implementation Team) to resolve those discrepancies. 

1.5.3 Challenges of Bi-State Coordination and Multiple Management Units

The fact that the Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS span two states 

and three separate management units presents certain challenges in developing an ESUlevel recovery plan. First, the sheer volume of information generated through three 

 16 The Oregon management unit plan is available at 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.asp.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-17

separate planning processes is large. This ESU-level plan selects the most relevant 

information from the three management unit plans to present a coherent overview of the 

baseline status and potential future of the listed ESUs and DPS; where appropriate, the 

document refers the reader to more detailed information available in the individual 

management unit plans. 

Second, the level of effort needed to recover the listed ESUs and DPS also is large, and 

how the responsibility for achieving recovery is apportioned between Oregon and 

Washington has significant financial and organizational implications for implementing 

entities in each state. Early in the recovery planning process, management unit planners 

decided to share the recovery burden between the two states. However, they agreed that 

in doing so they would consider the historical proportion of populations in each state 

and where the prospects for recovery are most promising (LCFRB 2010a). Thus, for some 

ESUs the burden of recovery falls more heavily on one side of the Columbia River than 

the other. For example, Washington carries the greatest burden in recovering tule fall 

Chinook salmon, in part because most of the historical fall Chinook salmon populations 

were in Washington.

Third, the three management unit planning teams took different approaches to 

developing their recovery plans, in part because different salmon recovery planning 

structures are in place in Oregon and Washington but also because NMFS encourages 

recovery plans to be locally developed and supported. This naturally leads to unique 

approaches. Although each management unit plan contains the elements required for a 

recovery plan and draws on common scientific principles and resources provided by the 

WLC TRT, the specific approaches used to develop the required elements, and 

sometimes the results, varied among the management unit plans. Where relevant, this 

ESU-level plan acknowledges and describes the differences in approaches and results 

and discusses the implications of those differences. 

Fourth, given the complexity of the salmonid life cycle, some regional issues that affect 

the Lower Columbia River ESUs and DPS are beyond the scope of any one management 

plan. Examples include the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) and the role 

of the Columbia River estuary in the life cycle of the listed ESUs and DPS. Such issues 

need to be addressed at the regional level. Thus, NMFS developed the following 

recovery plan modules that analyze regional issues:

• Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a; see Appendix D.) The estuary document focuses on habitat in the lower 

Columbia River below Bonneville Dam and how it affects the survival of ESA-listed, 

coho, Chinook, chum, and steelhead from throughout the Columbia Basin, 

including the Lower Columbia River ESUs and DPS. Geographically, the module 

covers the tidally influenced reaches of the lower river, estuary, and plume. The 

module identifies and prioritizes limiting factors and threats in the estuary that 

affect salmonid viability and describes 23 broad actions that, if implemented, would 

increase the survival of salmon and steelhead during their time in the estuary and 

plume. Costs, implementation considerations, and research, monitoring, and 

evaluation needs also are addressed. The actions and recommendations in the 

estuary module have been incorporated into this ESU-level recovery plan for the 

Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-18

• Recovery Plan Module: Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower Projects (NMFS 2008a; see 

Appendix E.) The hydropower module summarizes the general effects of Columbia 

River mainstem hydropower projects on all 13 ESA-listed anadromous salmonids in 

the Columbia Basin. The module’s geographical area consists of the accessible 

mainstem habitat in the upper Columbia River (to the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam) 

and Snake River (to the tailrace of Hells Canyon Dam) and downstream to the 

tailrace of Bonneville Dam. The module describes how salmon and steelhead use 

the mainstem, habitat limiting factors and threats related to mainstem hydropower 

projects and operations, and expected actions (including site-specific management 

actions) or strategy options to address those threats. The actions are those found in 

the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement (NMFS 2008f and 2010a), which constitute mitigation and recovery

actions for the FCRPS through 2018. The hydropower module presents recent 

survival estimates for ESA-listed populations migrating past mainstem 

hydroelectric project, and prospective passage survival rates for juveniles for 2014 

and beyond.

The estuary and hydropower recovery plan modules provided a consistent set of 

assumptions and recovery actions for regional-scale issues that management unit 

planning teams then incorporated into their management unit plans. Additional bi-state 

consultation and coordination were needed to ensure consistent treatment of

hydropower and estuary issues across the management unit plans, as well as of hatchery 

and harvest issues. Chapter 4 presents additional information on regional-scale limiting 

factors and recovery strategies.

Topics such as implementation, monitoring, adaptive management, and funding 

priorities also have both local-scale and regional aspects. This ESU-level recovery plan 

presents a regional perspective on such topics. Again, considerable bi-state consultation 

and coordination were needed to integrate these topics across the individual 

management plans and to develop a regional perspective and approach for the ESUlevel recovery plan.

1.5.4 Challenges of Addressing Multiple ESUs/DPSs in a Single Recovery Plan

Preparing a single recovery plan for multiple ESUs presents challenges in terms 

document organization, level of detail, and prioritization of actions. In some cases, the 

same limiting factors and threats affect more than one ESU, and the species-specific 

recovery strategies have the same or similar components. For example, for each ESU the 

management unit plans propose some similar tributary habitat actions to improve 

watershed health overall, which will benefit every ESU. In other cases the limiting 

factors, threats, and recovery actions are unique to an ESU or a run component of a 

species. To avoid unnecessary repetition from one species analysis to the next, this ESUlevel recovery plan includes a chapter on regional-scale limiting factors and recovery 

strategies; this information applies to multiple ESUs. When appropriate, the individual 

species analyses refer readers to the regional chapter (Chapter 4) instead of repeating the 

same or similar recovery strategy information from one ESU to the next. This is the case 

with watershed-based tributary habitat actions, the estuary habitat strategy, mainstem 

hydropower actions, the predation strategy, and certain elements of the harvest and 

hatchery strategies. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-19

Given the large amount of information available in three management unit plans on four 

different species, another (and related) challenge is to present relevant material at the 

appropriate level of detail in the ESU-level recovery plan. To maintain a cohesive 

narrative while not overwhelming the reader, this plan presents some information at a 

relatively abstract, summary level, with the understanding that readers will refer to the 

management unit plans for additional detail as their needs and interests dictate. 

Lastly, addressing multiple ESUs in a single plan raises the question of how recovery 

actions will be prioritized across ESUs. This is an issue that the management unit plans, 

for the most part, did not explicitly address, although they did offer some guidance on 

the topic. As described in Section 11.2, additional prioritization work is needed at both 

the management unit and subdomain levels, both within and among threat categories. 

Section 11.2 discusses prioritization in more detail, summarizing the management unit 

plans’ approaches and offering perspectives for potential consideration during 

implementation of this recovery plan.

1.5.5 Relationship to Other Processes

Development of this ESU-level recovery plan has been informed by many different 

conservation and recovery planning processes in Oregon, Washington, and the Pacific 

Northwest region. Some of these planning processes have been completed, but many are 

still under way and will continue to influence the content of this recovery plan as it is 

finalized, along with its implementation in the Lower Columbia subdomain. Planning 

efforts that have a significant bearing on the design or implementation of this recovery 

plan are described below. 

1.5.5.1 Willamette-Lower Columbia ESA Executive Committee (Ex Com) 

The Willamette-Lower Columbia ESA Ex Com performed a coordinating role during the 

early stages of recovery planning for this domain. Members included the Oregon and 

Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, the governors’ offices of Oregon and 

Washington, federal agencies, the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, the Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board, and the Willamette Partnership. During its tenure, the 

Ex Com worked to help align ongoing regional, state, and local processes with recovery 

planning; address bi-state and tribal coordination issues; develop agreement on recovery 

goals and other elements of recovery plans; ensure adequate integration of scientific 

information with recovery actions and strategies; and ensure that locally developed 

management unit plans address the needs of the full ESUs or DPSs.

1.5.5.2 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Subbasin Plans

Congress created the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) in 1980 to 

give Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana a voice in regional energy planning and 

in mitigating the effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System on fish and 

wildlife. The NPCC developed the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, which 

solicits and evaluates proposals for on-the-ground projects and research to meet these 

responsibilities. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) provides funding for 

NPCC-identified priority projects. In 2005, to update the Columbia Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program, the NPCC completed a watershed planning effort that resulted in 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-20

locally developed plans for 58 of 62 designated subbasins (tributary watersheds or 

mainstem segments) in the Columbia Basin, including subbasins within the geographic 

range of the Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS. The plans address 

the needs of both fish and wildlife. 

The subbasin plans provide valuable information on watershed-scale freshwater habitat 

conditions, limiting factors, and threats, as well as strategies at a subbasin level for 

addressing those limiting factors and threats. NMFS and its planning partners are using 

subbasin plans as building blocks for ESA salmon and steelhead recovery plans, and 

information from the Lower Columbia, White Salmon, Columbia Gorge, Hood, and 

Willamette subbasin plans has been incorporated into this ESU-level recovery plan. 

NMFS will continue to work with the NPCC and BPA to coordinate implementation of 

the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife program and ESA salmon recovery plans.

1.5.5.3 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and 2010 Supplement

As described in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and 

Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) and elsewhere, a limiting factor for Lower Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead during their time in the Columbia River estuary and, potentially, 

the plume is flow regulation and other effects related to the Federal Columbia River 

Power System (FCRPS) and non-federal Columbia and Snake River dams. The FCRPS is 

a series of dams and reservoirs that are managed for multiple purposes: power 

production, flood control, irrigation, navigation, recreation, and fish, wildlife, and 

cultural resource protection. Dam-related alterations of natural flow patterns in the 

lower Columbia River, estuary, and plume are responsible for decreased water velocity, 

longer migratory travel time (which increases exposure to predators) and higher water 

temperatures during the spring freshet. Each of these factors is associated with mortality 

of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.

The ESA requires that federal actions neither jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species nor result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 

habitat. Under law, the agencies that operate the FCRPS—the Bonneville Power 

Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Reclamation (collectively 

referred to as the Action Agencies)—must consult with NMFS on proposed FCRPS 

operations that may affect a listed fish species or its habitat. The product of such 

consultation is a Biological Opinion. 

In preparation for NMFS’ 2008 Biological Opinion on the FCRPS, the Action Agencies 

concluded that, without further mitigation, operation of FCRPS projects would 

jeopardize listed species. Consequently, the Action Agencies presented NMFS with a 

package of additional measures designed to benefit listed species, including the Lower 

Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS. Some of these actions were drawn 

from the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead

(NOAA Fisheries 2009), which describes the FCRPS’s effects on fish and presents 

recommendations and strategies for action. NMFS incorporated the Action Agencies’ 

proposed additional mitigation measures into its analysis for the 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion, which considers the mainstem Columbia from Bonneville Dam to the river’s 

mouth. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-21

The 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion was issued on May 5, 2008. In February 2010, NMFS 

issued the 2010 Supplemental Biological Opinion for the FCRPS (NMFS 2010a). This 

Supplemental Biological Opinion integrated elements from the 2008 Biological Opinion

and the Adaptive Management Implementation Plan (AMIP). The AMIP included 

accelerated and enhanced actions to protect Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead, 

including commitments to additional estuary habitat improvement actions under a new 

agreement with the state of Washington and additional efforts to control native and 

exotic predators. It also included enhanced research and monitoring and specific 

biological triggers for contingencies linked to unexpected declines in the abundance of 

listed salmon and steelhead. 

At the time this recovery plan was being drafted, it was the position of the State of 

Oregon that additional or alternative actions should be taken in mainstem operations of 

the FCRPS for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Some additional or alternative actions 

recommended by Oregon, while considered, were not included in NMFS’ 2008 FCRPS 

Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement because NMFS is not in agreement 

regarding the need for or efficacy of these additional actions. At this time, Oregon is a 

plaintiff in litigation against various federal agencies, including NMFS, challenging the 

adequacy of the measures contained in the current FCRPS Biological Opinion. On 

August 2, 2011, Judge James A. Redden of the U.S. District Court (District of Oregon) 

issued an opinion and order that remanded the 2008 Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement back to NMFS. Judge Redden left the Biological Opinion in place until a 

new opinion is issued no later than January 1, 2014, and ordered that all of the opinion’s 

mitigation measures be funded and implemented in that time. 

1.5.5.4 Columbia River Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG)

In 2005, Congress directed NMFS to use the Puget Sound and coastal Washington 

hatchery reform project as a model for similar reform in the Columbia Basin. The 

Columbia River Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) conducted a collaborative, 

scientific review and identified alternatives for managing hatchery programs and 

fisheries to meet managers’ goals for harvest and recovery (Hatchery Scientific Review 

Group 2009).

The HSRG concluded that hatcheries play an important role in the management of 

salmon and steelhead populations in the Pacific Northwest. Nevertheless, the traditional 

practice of replacing natural populations with hatchery fish to mitigate for habitat loss 

and mortality resulting from hydropower dams is not consistent with contemporary 

conservation principles and scientific knowledge. Hatchery fish cannot replace lost 

habitat or the natural populations that rely on that habitat.

The HSRG concluded that hatchery programs should be viewed as tools that can be 

managed as part of a coordinated strategy to meet watershed or regional resource goals, 

in concert with actions affecting habitat, harvest rates, water allocation, and other factors 

that influence salmon and steelhead survival. The HSRG summary conclusions 

regarding areas where current hatchery and harvest practices need to be reformed 

through policy, management, research, and monitoring practices were as follows: 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-22

• Manage hatchery broodstocks to achieve proper genetic integration with, or 

segregation from, natural populations.

• Promote local adaptation of natural and hatchery populations.

• Minimize adverse ecological interactions between hatchery- and natural-origin

fish.

• Minimize effects of hatchery facilities on the ecosystem. 

• Maximize survival of hatchery fish.

The HSRG also developed three principles for hatchery management that are applicable 

to hatchery programs across Puget Sound, the Washington Coast, and the Columbia 

Basin: (1) develop clear, specific, and quantifiable harvest and conservation goals for 

natural and hatchery populations within an “all-H” context, (2) design and operate 

hatchery programs in a scientifically defensible manner, and (3) monitor, evaluate, and 

adaptively manage hatchery programs. The HSRG concluded that the more closely 

hatchery programs adhere to these principles, the greater the likelihood of their 

contribution to the managers’ harvest and conservation goals.

Local recovery planners considered the HSRG’s general and population-specific 

recommendations in developing hatchery actions for their recovery plans.

1.5.5.5 State-Level Planning Processes

Native Fish Conservation Policy

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the Native Fish Conservation Policy

(NFCP) in November 2002 to provide a basis for managing fisheries, habitat, hatcheries, 

predators, competitors, and pathogens in balance with sustainable production of 

naturally produced native fish. The three goals of the policy are to (1) prevent the 

serious depletion of native fish, (2) restore and maintain naturally produced fish in order 

to provide substantial ecological, economic and cultural benefits to the citizens of 

Oregon, and (3) foster and sustain opportunities for fisheries consistent with the 

conservation of naturally produced fish and responsible use of hatcheries. The NFCP is 

to be implemented and its goals achieved through the development of conservation 

plans for individual groups of populations, or species management units. The Lower 

Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon and 

Steelhead (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010) meets the requirements for 

NFCP conservation plans as well as those for an ESA recovery plan for salmon and 

steelhead.

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

In 1997 Oregon’s Governor and Legislature adopted the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds to begin state-led recovery efforts. The mission of the plan is to restore 

Oregon’s native fish populations and the aquatic systems that support them to 

productive and sustainable levels that will provide substantial environmental, cultural, 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-23

and economic benefits. The plan has a strong focus on salmon, with actions designed to 

improve water quality and quantity and restore habitat. 

Oregon is implementing the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds in a manner that is 

consistent with ESA recovery planning and other Oregon programs related to salmon. 

Watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts lead efforts in many 

subbasins, with support from landowners and other private citizens, recreational and 

commercial fishing interests, the timber industry, environmental groups, agriculture, 

utilities, businesses, tribes, and all levels of government. The Oregon Plan relies on 

volunteerism and stewardship, public education and awareness, scientific oversight, 

coordinated tribal and government efforts, and ongoing monitoring and adaptive 

management to achieve program success. 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 

The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) is a state agency that supports 

Oregon’s efforts to improve water quality, strengthen ecosystems, and restore salmon 

runs. OWEB coordinates the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds’ implementation 

of recovery plans for both state and federally listed species, including ESA-listed 

salmonids in the Columbia River and Upper Willamette basins. OWEB administers a 

grant program funded from Oregon Lottery proceeds and salmon license plate sales. 

The program funds the cooperative conservation work of a wide variety of participants, 

with up to 70 percent of the grant funding apportioned to on-the-ground restoration 

projects. OWEB also administers three other salmon-related programs: (1) the federal

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds (PCSRF) for the state, for projects that 

measurably contribute to the recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, (2) the 

OWEB Small Grant Program for local watershed restoration, and (3) the Conservation 

Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a voluntary land retirement program that helps 

agricultural landowners establish riparian vegetation along streams.

Washington Watershed Planning

The state Watershed Management Act (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 90.82) gives 

local communities the opportunity to plan for the future use of their water resources in 

consultation with state agencies. To facilitate this planning, the state has been divided 

into Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs), seven of which are within the Lower 

Columbia recovery planning area.17 The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 

coordinates watershed planning in four of the seven lower Columbia WRIAs. Klickitat 

County coordinates watershed planning in the White Salmon WRIA. Watershed plans 

for these WRIAs will address issues associated with water quantity, water quality, 

stream flows, and habitat, including the current condition of fish habitat and measures 

to protect or enhance habitat to support salmon recovery efforts.

Water quantity and quality and stream flow studies and data collected by the watershed 

planning initiatives have been incorporated into the Washington Lower Columbia Salmon 

Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2010a), and habitat data collected 

 17 WRIA 24 is partially in the Lower Columbia River subdomain; WRIAs 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 are wholly 

within the Lower Columbia River subdomain; WRIA 29 is split into 29A (Wind) and 29B (White Salmon).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-24

through the recovery planning effort has been shared with the watershed planning 

effort. Policies, strategies, actions, and priorities associated with ESA recovery planning 

and water resource planning are being coordinated to ensure that they are compatible 

and complement each other.

Washington Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration

The Washington Salmon Recovery Act (RCW 77.85) provides for the funding of habitat 

protection and restoration efforts, requires local and regional program organizations to 

identify and prioritize project needs, and directs the Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife to develop guidance for regional salmon recovery efforts.

The Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) coordinates the funding process on the 

statewide level. It establishes program policies and directions and grant requirements, 

screens project proposals, and awards grants. Lead entities coordinate the process on the 

local or regional level. They develop habitat protection and restoration strategies for 

their area and solicit, evaluate, rank, and propose projects to the SRFB. The Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board serves as the lead entity for most of the lower Columbia 

subdomain. In this capacity, the LCFRB has developed and annually updated and 

expanded a lower Columbia habitat strategy that provides a basis for prioritizing 

proposed habitat projects. Development of the strategy has been merged with ESA 

recovery planning in Washington such that elements of the strategy became an integral 

part of the Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan

(LCFRB 2010a) and thus this ESU-level recovery plan. Klickitat County serves as the 

lead entity for the White Salmon subbasin and has developed a strategy to guide 

prioritization of proposed habitat projects for that watershed. 

1.6 Tribal Treaty and Trust Responsibilities

The salmon and steelhead that were once abundant in the watersheds of the lower 

Columbia Basin were crucial to Native Americans throughout the region. Pacific 

Northwest Indian tribes today retain strong spiritual and cultural ties to salmon and 

steelhead, based on thousands of years of use for tribal religious/cultural ceremonies, 

subsistence, and commerce. Many Northwest Indian tribes have treaties reserving their 

right to fish in usual and accustomed fishing places, including areas covered by this 

recovery plan. Additionally, four Washington coastal tribes have treaty rights to ocean 

salmon harvest that may include some Lower Columbia River salmon stocks. These 

Columbia Basin and Washington Coast treaty tribes are co-managers of salmon stocks 

and participate in management decisions, including those related to hatchery 

production and harvest. Some other tribes in the Columbia Basin, whose reservations 

were created by Executive Order, do not have treaty reserved rights but do have a trust 

relationship with the federal government and an interest in salmon and steelhead

management, including harvest and hatchery production. Other Indian tribes, while not 

asserting treaty reserved rights, do fish for subsistence and ceremonial purposes in areas 

covered by this plan, in compliance with agreements with the state of Oregon. 

The NMFS Regional Administrator, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee (Lohn 2003), emphasized the importance of this co-manager relationship: 

“We have repeatedly stressed to the region’s leaders, tribal and non-tribal, the 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

1-25

importance of our co-management and trust relationship to the tribes. NMFS enjoys a 

positive working relationship with our Pacific Northwest tribal partners. We view the 

relationship as crucial to the region’s future success in recovery of listed salmon.”

Native American treaty-reserved fishing rights in the Columbia basin are under the 

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

United States v. Oregon, No. 68-513 (filed in 1968). In U.S. v. Oregon, the Court affirmed 

that certain treaties reserved for the tribes up to 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of 

fish destined to pass through their usual and accustomed fishing areas. The U.S. v. 

Oregon process affects the allocation of harvest among various fisheries and thus affects 

how fisheries are managed in the lower Columbia River; in addition, Lower Columbia 

River populations that spawn above Bonneville Dam are intercepted in tribal fisheries.

Restoring and sustaining a sufficient abundance of salmon and steelhead for harvest is 

an important requirement in fulfilling tribal fishing aspirations. It is NMFS’ policy to 

promote restoration of salmon and steelhead runs sufficient for tribal harvest. This 

policy is described in a July 21, 1998, letter from Terry D. Garcia, Assistant Secretary for 

Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, to Mr. Ted Strong, Executive 

Director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. This letter states that 

recovery “must achieve two goals: (1) the recovery and delisting of salmonids listed 

under the provisions of the ESA, and (2) the restoration of salmonid populations over 

time, to a level to provide a sustainable harvest sufficient to allow for the meaningful 

exercise of tribal fishing rights.” Thus it is appropriate for recovery plans to 

acknowledge tribal harvest goals. Where tribal harvest goals can only be met through 

hatchery production, recovery plans will identify strategies and actions to ensure that 

the hatchery production is consistent with recovery of naturally spawning populations. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-1

2. Defining Viability for Salmon and Steelhead

This chapter presents biological background information that will aid the reader in 

understanding the limiting factor and threats analyses, recovery criteria and goals, and 

recovery strategies that are part of this ESU-level recovery plan. Specifically, the chapter 

describes basic concepts in salmonid biology (i.e., biological structure, population 

viability, and critical habitat), presents biological criteria the WLC TRT developed for

assessing the viability of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead, and briefly 

summarizes methods and benchmarks the WLC TRT recommends for evaluating 

individual population status. (Chapter 5 provides additional details on methods.) 

Recovery goals in the management unit plans and NMFS’ criteria for delisting the Lower 

Columbia River species are both based on this work of the WLC TRT. (See Chapter 3 for 

recovery goals and delisting criteria.)

2.1 ESU/DPS Biological Structure 

Salmonid species’ homing propensity (their tendency to return to the locations where 

they originated) creates unique patterns of genetic variation and connectivity among

spawning areas across the landscape. Diverse genetic, life history, and morphological 

characteristics have evolved in salmon and steelhead over generations, creating runs 

adapted to diverse environments. It is this variation that gives a salmonid species as a 

whole the resilience to persist over time.

Historically, a salmon ESU or steelhead DPS typically contained multiple populations 

connected by some small degree of genetic exchange that reflected the geography of the 

river basins in which they spawned. Thus, the overall biological structure of the ESU or 

DPS is hierarchical, and spawners in the same area of the same stream share more 

characteristics than those in the next stream over. Fish whose natal streams are 

separated by hundreds of miles generally have less genetic similarity. The ESU or DPS is 

essentially a metapopulation defined as a group of populations connected by limited 

exchange of migrants. Recovery planning efforts focus on this biologically based 

hierarchy, which reflects the degree of connectivity between the fish at each geographic 

and conceptual level.

McElhany et al. (2000) identified two levels in this hierarchy for recovery planning 

purposes: the evolutionarily significant unit and the independent population. The 

WLC TRT identified an additional level between the population and ESU/DPS levels: 

the stratum (McElhany et al. 2003). Strata are analogous to major population groups 

(MPGs) as defined by the Interior Columbia TRT and to geographic regions described by 

the Puget Sound TRT. 

This recovery plan adopts the ESU/DPS, stratum, and population structure described 

below. NMFS and the WLC TRT identified the ESUs/DPS, strata, and populations of 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead based on geography, migration rates, 

genetic attributes, life history patterns, phenotypic characteristics, population dynamics, 

and environmental and habitat characteristics (Myers et al. 2006), as well as an 

understanding of the characteristics of viable salmonid populations (McElhany et al. 

2000). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-2

2.1.1 Evolutionarily Significant Units and Distinct Population Segments

Two criteria define an ESU of salmon under NMFS’ ESU policy: (1) it must be 

substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific units, and (2) it must 

represent an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species (Waples 

1991). 

Two similar but slightly different criteria define a DPS of steelhead under the joint 

NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service DPS policy: (1) discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs, and 

(2) significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs. 

An ESU or DPS can contain multiple populations that are connected by some degree of 

migration, and hence may have a broad geographic range across watersheds, river 

basins, and political jurisdictions.

2.1.2 Strata

Within an ESU or DPS, independent populations can be grouped into larger groups

based on ecological zone and dominant life history strategy, expressed as run timing, 

meaning the time of year when salmon return to native freshwater systems. These major 

population groups, or strata, share similar genetic, geographic, and/or habitat 

characteristics. Strata are isolated from one another over a longer time scale than that 

defining the individual populations, but they retain a degree of connectivity greater than 

that between different ESUs or DPSs. Figure 2-1 shows the relationship between 

ESU/DPS, strata, and independent populations. 

Figure 2-1. Hierarchical Levels of Salmonid Species Structure for ESU/DPS Recovery Planning

Source: ODFW 2010.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-3

In the case of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead, strata are defined by a 

combination of ecological zone—Coast, Cascade, or Gorge—and dominant life history 

strategy, such as spring, fall, or late fall run timing. For example, Cascade fall Chinook 

and Cascade spring Chinook are separate strata. (See Tables 6-2, 7-2, 8-1, and 9-2 for the 

historical populations and strata for the salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS covered by this 

recovery plan.)

2.1.3 Independent Populations

McElhany et al. (2000) defined an independent population as follows: 

“... a group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular 

lake or stream (or portion thereof) at a particular season and which, 

to a substantial degree, does not interbreed with fish from any other 

group spawning in a different place or in the same place at a 

different season. For our purposes, not interbreeding to a ‘substantial 

degree’ means that two groups are considered to be independent 

populations if they are isolated to such an extent that exchanges of 

individuals among the populations do not substantially affect the 

population dynamics or extinction risk of the independent 

populations over a 100-year time frame.”

It is seldom possible to obtain exact measures of the degree of interbreeding between 

groups of fish. Therefore, the WLC TRT used several kinds of information to build up an 

understanding of population boundaries: geography, migration rates, genetic attributes, 

patterns of life history and phenotype (visible characteristics), abundance data, and 

environment (Myers et al. 2006). According to WLC TRT definitions, a population 

cannot be larger than a stratum or an ESU or DPS. 

2.2 Viable Salmonid Populations

Viability is a key concept within the context of the Endangered Species Act. A viable 

salmonid ESU or DPS is naturally self-sustaining over the long term. A viable salmonid 

population has a negligible risk of extinction over a 100-year time frame (McElhany et al. 

2000). McElhany et al. (2000) describe viable salmonid populations (VSPs) in terms of 

four parameters: abundance, population productivity or growth rate, population spatial 

structure, and life history and genetic diversity. Although these parameters sometimes 

are analyzed discretely, they are closely associated, such that improvements in one 

parameter typically cause or are related to improvements in another. For example, 

productivity improvements might depend on increased diversity or habitat quality and 

be accompanied by increased abundance and distribution.

2.2.1 Abundance and Productivity

Abundance refers to the number of spawners (adults on the spawning ground), 

averaged over a time period sufficient to account for year-to-year fluctuations that are

due to natural environmental variation. The productivity of a population (the average 

number of surviving offspring per parent) is a measure of the population’s ability to 

sustain itself. Productivity can be measured as spawner-to-spawner ratios (returns per 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-4

spawner or recruits per spawner, meaning adult progeny to parent), annual population 

growth rate, or trends in abundance. Population-specific estimates of abundance and 

productivity are derived from time series of annual estimates, which typically are 

subject to a high degree of annual variability and sampling-induced uncertainties. 

Abundance and productivity are linked. Populations with low productivity can still 

persist if they are sufficiently large, and small populations can persist if they are 

sufficiently productive. A viable salmonid population needs sufficient abundance to 

maintain genetic health and to respond to normal environmental variation, and 

sufficient productivity to enable the population to quickly rebound from periods of poor 

ocean conditions or freshwater perturbations. 

The VSP guidelines for abundance recommend that a viable population should (1) be 

large enough to have a high probability of surviving environmental variation observed 

in the past and expected in the future, (2) be resilient to environmental and 

anthropogenic disturbances, (3) maintain genetic diversity, and (4) provide ecosystem 

functions (McElhany et al. 2000). Factors suggesting that a population is at a critically 

low size include decreased reproductive success because individuals cannot efficiently 

find mates, fixation of harmful genetic mutations or reduced fitness as a result of 

inbreeding, and random demographic effects, such as if the variation in individual 

reproduction becomes important. 

Productivity guidelines for viability are reached when a population’s productivity is 

such that abundance can be maintained above the viable level, viability is independent 

of hatchery subsidy, viability is maintained even during sequences of poor 

environmental conditions, declines in abundance are not sustained, life history traits are 

not in flux, and conclusions about a population’s productivity are independent of 

uncertainty in parameter estimates (McElhany 2000). 

Viability analyses of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead suggest that, in 

general, populations of at least 500 fish are needed to ensure that critically low numbers 

do not result from normal variations in environmental conditions (McElhany et al. 2003). 

However, this number does not reflect actual minimum viable population sizes for the 

purposes of recovery planning. The abundance and productivity needed for recovery 

varies from one population to the next because of differences in habitat quantity, habitat 

quality, fish distribution, juvenile production, spatial structure, and life history and 

genetic diversity. The recovery goals in Chapter 3 reflect these variations.

2.2.2 Spatial Structure and Diversity

Considerations of spatial structure and diversity are combined in the evaluation of a 

salmonid population’s status because they often overlap. A population’s spatial 

structure is made up of both the geographic distribution of individuals in the population 

and the processes that generate that distribution (McElhany et al. 2000). Spatial structure 

refers to the amount of habitat available, the organization and connectivity of habitat 

patches, and the relatedness and exchange rates of adjacent populations. Spatial 

structure influences the viability of salmon and steelhead because populations with 

restricted distribution and few spawning areas are at a higher risk of extinction as a 

result of catastrophic environmental events, such as a landslide, than are populations 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-5

with more widespread and complex spatial structures. A population with a complex 

spatial structure, including multiple spawning areas, experiences more natural exchange 

of gene flow and life history characteristics. (However, excessive exchange of migrants 

above historical levels can impede the process of local adaptation.)

Diversity refers to the distribution of life history, behavioral, and physiological traits 

within and among populations. Some traits are completely genetically based, while 

others, including nearly all morphological, behavioral, and life history traits, vary as a 

result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors (McElhany et al. 2000).

Like spatial structure, population-level diversity is important for long-term persistence 

of salmon and steelhead. Populations exhibiting greater diversity are generally more 

resilient to short-term and long-term environmental changes. Phenotypic diversity, 

which includes variation in morphology and life history traits, allows more diverse 

populations to use a wider array of environments, and protects populations against 

short-term temporal and spatial environmental changes. Underlying genetic diversity 

provides the ability to survive long-term environmental changes.

Because neither the precise role that diversity plays in salmonid population viability nor 

the relationship of spatial processes to viability is completely understood, the 

management unit plans and this ESU-level recovery plan adopt the principle from 

McElhany et al. (2000) that historical spatial structure and diversity should be taken as a 

“default benchmark,” on the assumption that historical, natural populations did survive 

many environmental changes and therefore must have had adequate spatial structure 

and diversity. 

McElhany et al. (2000) also offers spatial structure and diversity guidelines for viable 

salmonid populations. Spatial structure guidelines are reached when the number of 

habitat patches is stable or increasing, stray rates are stable, marginally suitable habitat 

patches are preserved, refuge source populations are preserved, and uncertainty is taken 

into account. Diversity guidelines are reached when variation in life history, 

morphological, and genetic traits is maintained; natural dispersal processes are 

maintained; ecological variation is maintained; and the effects of uncertainty are 

considered.

For all four of the viable salmonid population parameters, the guidelines recommend 

that population-specific status evaluations, goals, and criteria take into account the level 

of scientific uncertainty about how an individual parameter relates to a population’s 

viability (McElhany 2000). 

2.3 Critical Habitat

The ESA requires the federal government to designate critical habitat for any species it 

lists under the ESA, with critical habitat defined as occupied areas that contain physical 

or biological features that are essential for the conservation of the species and that may 

require special management or protection, and unoccupied areas that are essential for 

conservation. Critical habitat designations must be based on the best scientific 

information available, in an open public process, within specific time frames. The 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-6

designations are one factor to consider during the identification and prioritization of 

recovery actions in recovery plans. 

A critical habitat designation applies only when federal funding, permits, or projects are 

involved. Under section 7 of the ESA, all federal agencies must ensure that any actions 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. Before 

critical habitat is designated, careful consideration must be given to its economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, and other relevant impacts. The Secretary of 

Commerce may exclude an area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of designation, unless excluding the area will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned.

In determining which areas should be critical habitat, NMFS identified the geographic 

areas occupied by the species and the physical or biological features essential for the 

conservation of the species. For all salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs this includes sites 

and habitat components that support one or more life stages; examples include

(1) freshwater spawning sites, (2) freshwater rearing sites, (3) freshwater migration 

corridors, and (4) estuarine areas. NMFS also identified features associated with these 

types of sites that play an essential role in maintaining habitat health. These features also 

describe the habitat factors associated with viability for all ESUs and DPSs (although the 

specific habitat requirements for each ESU and DPS differ by life history type and life 

stage).

On September 2, 2005, NMFS published a final rule (70 Federal Register 52630) to 

designate critical habitat for 13 ESUs and DPSs of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. 

Lower Columbia River Chinook, steelhead, and chum were included in this rule, but 

critical habitat for Lower Columbia River coho has not yet been designated. Critical 

Habitat Assessment Review Teams rated the conservation value of all watersheds that 

supported populations of the listed species and, depending on the importance of the 

watersheds to salmonid survival, assigned ratings of high, medium, or low. These 

ratings were used in determining the final critical habitat designations.

The final designations focus on certain physical and biological elements that support one 

or more salmonid life stages (spawning, rearing, migration, and foraging) and that are 

essential to the conservation of the species. The designations balanced ratings of the 

areas that provide the greatest biological benefits for listed salmon and steelhead with 

economic and other costs. 

Maps of the critical habitat areas are available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonHabitat/Critical-Habitat/CH-Maps.cfm and in the Federal Register notice, which also 

contains legal descriptions of the critical habitat areas. 

NMFS recognizes that salmon habitat is dynamic and that current understanding of 

areas important for conservation will likely change as recovery planning sheds light on 

areas that can and should be protected and restored. NMFS will update the critical 

habitat designations as needed based on information developed during recovery plan 

implementation.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-7

2.4 WLC TRT Biological Viability Criteria

The WLC TRT developed biological viability criteria that it recommends be used to 

assess long-term extinction risk at the ESU, stratum, and population level. Based on best 

available science, these criteria consist of a combination of general statements and 

metrics that characterize viability; the WLC TRT also suggested methods of applying the 

criteria to assess the probability that a population, stratum, or ESU will persist. As 

described in Chapter 3, the biological viability criteria summarized below served as an 

important foundation from which the management unit planners decided on recovery 

goals and NMFS developed delisting criteria for Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead ESUs. 

2.4.1 Background

NMFS asked the WLC TRT to develop biological viability criteria for use as the basis of 

recovery goals and delisting criteria. Biological viability criteria describe ESU or DPS 

characteristics associated with a low risk of extinction for the foreseeable future and are 

defined at the ESU/DPS, stratum, and population levels. (A stratum is a group of 

independent populations that share similar environments, life-history characteristics, 

and geographic proximity.) The status of a salmon ESU or steelhead DPS as a whole is 

evaluated by considering the status of each of its strata; the status of a stratum, in turn, is 

determined by considering the status of each of its component populations. 

At the ESU or DPS level, viability criteria inform the questions of how many and which 

populations need to be viable (i.e., at a low risk of extinction) and what the appropriate 

risk levels are for other populations so that the ESU or DPS as a whole has a low risk of 

extinction. For the Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS, biological 

viability criteria are based on guidelines developed by NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center and published as a NMFS technical memorandum, Viable Salmonid 

Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). The 

guidelines in McElhany et al. (2000) are intended to aid in the following:

1. Management of risks to the ESU or DPS from catastrophic events. Having 

multiple, geographically dispersed populations in an ESU or DPS reduces the 

risk of extinction from a single catastrophic event.

2. Maintenance of long-term demographic processes. Having multiple populations 

in an ESU or DPS—some in proximity and some dispersed—allows natural 

demographic processes to occur, such as population-level extinction and 

recolonization. 

3. Maintenance of long-term evolutionary potential. Having multiple populations 

distributed across the geography of the ESU or DPS and representing diverse life 

histories and phenotypes allows for the genetic processes characteristic of longterm evolution. 

At the stratum level, the WLC TRT developed criteria to guide decisions about which 

populations to target for various levels of viability. At the population level, the TRT 

developed criteria that describe viable salmonid populations (VSPs) in terms of the 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-8

parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity, according to 

guidelines in McElhany et al. (2000). (See Section 2.5.5 of this recovery plan for the VSP 

guidelines.) 

The TRT’s biological viability criteria take the form of general statements that 

characterize viability, metrics that describe viable populations and strata, methodologies 

for evaluating whether a population or stratum is viable, and, if not, what its current 

extinction risk (or persistence probability) is. This chapter presents the WLC TRT’s 

biological viability criteria and their recommended methods and metrics for evaluating 

population status.

2.4.2 Viability Criteria Technical Reports

The WLC TRT outlined its viability criteria for Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead populations, strata, and ESUs in a series of technical reports. The Interim 

Report on Viability Criteria for Willamette and Lower Columbia Basin Pacific Salmonids

(McElhany et al. 2003) presents the WLC TRT’s initial recommendations regarding ESU-, 

stratum-, and population-level viability criteria. For population-level criteria, this report 

considered five population-level attributes: (1) adult abundance and productivity 

(combined into a single attribute because abundance and productivity are so interlinked 

in their effect on extinction risk), (2) juvenile outmigrant growth rate, (3) spatial 

structure, (4) habitat, and (5) diversity. The 2003 interim report also introduced general 

principles and approaches for evaluating current population status and suggested a 

qualitative scoring system based on the five population attributes.1

In 2006 the WLC TRT produced Revised Viability Criteria for Salmon and Steelhead in the 

Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins (McElhany et al. 2006). The revised criteria relied on 

three population-level attributes instead of five: (1) abundance and productivity (still 

combined into a single attribute), (2) spatial structure, and (3) diversity. (Juvenile 

outmigrant productivity was incorporated into abundance and productivity, and habitat 

attributes were addressed as part of the discussion of listing factors criteria [McElhany et 

al. 2006]). The revised viability criteria also recommended the use of viability curves and 

minimum abundance thresholds to evaluate abundance and productivity—rather than 

the population change criteria approach suggested in McElhany et al. (2003)—and 

provided initial viability curves and benchmarks for the Lower Columbia River ESUs.2

Additional work to refine approaches for evaluating population status was captured in 

Viability Status of Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Populations in the Willamette and Lower 

Columbia Basins (McElhany et al. 2007). This document is not a WLC TRT product, as the 

WLC TRT had dissolved in 2006 after completing the revised viability criteria in 

McElhany et al. (2006). Instead, Viability Status of Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Populations 

 1 The 2003 interim report was supplemented in 2004 by the Status Evaluation of Salmon and Steelhead 

Populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia River Basins (McElhany et al. 2004), which applied the 

methodology described in McElhany et al. (2003) to Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead 

populations and some Upper Willamette populations. 

2 The 2006 report also discussed methods for evaluating population status in more depth than previous 

reports; refined analyses, metrics, and benchmarks; and applied the spatial structure methodology to 

Oregon LCR coho as a demonstration and test case, using newly available habitat accessibility maps 

published in 2005 (Maher et al. 2005). For more detail on the TRT’s population status assessment 

methodology, see Section 2.6 of this recovery plan.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-9

in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins (McElhany et al. 2007) was a collaborative 

effort of NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center staff, ODFW staff, and a private 

consultant working for the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board to refine population 

status assessments for the Oregon and Washington management unit plans. The 

document is described here because it made valuable contributions to methods for 

population status assessment. 

McElhany et al. (2007) provides modified minimum abundance thresholds and viability 

curves for the Lower Columbia River ESUs. It also provides additional detail on how to 

evaluate the diversity attribute. Lastly, the 2007 document applies the WLC TRT 

recommendations for evaluating population status to Oregon populations of Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead. Especially for spatial structure, the methods and 

approaches are similar to those in the 2006 report; where they differ, the methods 

described and demonstrated in Viability Status of Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Populations

in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins (McElhany et al. 2007) supersede those in the 

2006 report and earlier WLC TRT documents. 

The WLC TRT’s viability criteria are summarized below. 

2.4.3 TRT ESU-Level Viability Criteria

2.4.3.1 Defining ESU-Level Viability

As described in Section 2.1, each Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead stratum is 

defined by a combination of ecological zone (Coast, Cascade, or Gorge) and dominant 

life history strategy, expressed as run timing (fall, winter, etc.). The WLC TRT defined a 

viable Lower Columbia River ESU or DPS in terms of the status of its component strata:

In a viable ESU or DPS, “every stratum (life history and ecological zone 

combination) that historically existed should have a high probability of 

persistence” (McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006).

The strata represent major diversity units within the ESU or DPS. Given the correlation 

between diversity and species resilience, the persistence of every historical stratum 

provides a substantial buffer against the negative effects of environmental variation, 

catastrophic events, and loss of genetic variation. It is the TRT’s view that the loss of any 

particular stratum within an ESU or DPS would significantly reduce the resilience of 

that ESU or DPS and significantly increase its risk of extinction.

2.4.3.2 ESU-Level Recovery Strategy Guidelines

The WLC TRT also suggested two guidelines for use in developing ESU-level recovery 

strategies:

• Non-deterioration: Until all ESU viability criteria have been achieved, no population 

should be allowed to deteriorate in its probability of persistence.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-10

• Safety factors: High levels of recovery should be attempted in more populations 

than recommended for strata-level viability because not all attempts will be 

successful. (McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006)

These guidelines emphasize the uncertainties inherent in the recovery process and build 

in safety factors to increase the likelihood of achieving viability goals. The WLC TRT 

illustrated the benefit of targeting more than the minimum number of populations for 

high levels of recovery by calculating that the chances of recovering at least three 

populations within an ESU go from 51 percent to 95 percent if the number of 

populations in which recovery is attempted goes from three to six, assuming that the 

probability of successful recovery for any given population is 80 percent (McElhany et 

al. 2003). 

2.4.4 TRT Stratum-Level Viability Criteria

If a viable ESU or DPS is one in which every stratum that existed historically has a high 

probability of persistence, what constitutes a high-persistence stratum? It is the 

WLC TRT’s view that, although representative populations need to be preserved, not 

every historical population needs to be restored for a stratum to be highly persistent. 

The WLC TRT defined a high-persistence stratum in terms of two criteria, the first 

concerning the number of populations that need to be viable and the second concerning 

which populations need to be viable. 

2.4.4.1 Criterion 1: How Many Populations in the Stratum Should Be Viable?

Criterion 1: Individual populations within a stratum should have persistence 

probabilities consistent with a high probability of strata persistence (McElhany 

2003 and 2006).

The WLC TRT further described this criterion in terms of an adequate persistence 

probability for each individual population, using a four-point scale. As shown in Table 

2-1, 0 indicates a population that has a very low probability of persisting over a 100-year

time frame and 4 indicates a population that has a very high probability of persisting. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-11

Table 2-1

Population Viability Categories, Corresponding to 100-Year Extinction Risk

Probability of 

Persistence* Extinction Risk PopulationViability

Persistence 

Score

0 – 40% Extinct or very high risk of extinction (VH) Very low (VL) 0

40 – 75% Relatively high risk of extinction (H) Low (L) 1

75 – 95% Moderate risk of extinction (M) Medium (M) 2

95 – 99% Low/negligible risk of extinction (L) High (H) 3

> 99% Very low risk of extinction (VL) Very high (VH) 4

* Probability of population persisting over a 100-year time frame.

Source: McElhany et al. (2006).

The extinction risk of the entire stratum is determined by averaging the viability scores 

for the individual populations that make up the stratum, with an average of 2.25 or 

higher indicating a stratum that has a high probability of persistence. Additionally, the 

WLC TRT recommended that a stratum have at least two populations with a viability 

score of 3 or higher for the stratum to be considered highly likely to persist. (Table 2-2 

shows the stratum-level extinction risks associated with different averages of population 

risk.)

In other words, for a stratum to have a high probability of persistence, at least two 

populations must be at least 95 percent likely to persist over a 100-year time frame and 

the average viability of all the populations in the stratum must be 2.25 or higher. (This is 

roughly equivalent to requiring that at least 50 percent of the populations in a stratum 

be viable, but using the average population persistence score recognizes that population 

status is a continuum and not a simple dichotomy of viable or not viable.) 

Table 2-2

Stratum-Level Extinction Risk Associated with Population Risk

Probability of Stratum Persistence Population Persistence 

Low Persistence Average score: < 2

Moderate Persistence Average score: 2 to < 2.25

At least two populations: 3 or higher

High Persistence Average score: 2.25 or higher

At least two populations: 3 or higher

Source: McElhany et al. (2003).

2.4.4.2 Criterion 2: Which Populations in the Stratum Should Be Viable?

The TRT presented a second stratum-level criterion that offers guidance on which 

populations need to be viable:
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-12

Criterion 2: Within a stratum, the populations restored/maintained at viable 

status or above should be selected to: 

a. Allow for normative metapopulation processes, including the viability of 

“core” populations, which are defined as the historically most productive 

populations. 

b. Allow for normative evolutionary processes, including the retention of the 

genetic diversity represented in relatively unmodified historical gene pools. 

c. Minimize susceptibility to catastrophic events. (McElhany 2003 and 2006)

Thus, a stratum with a high probability of persistence should include “core” 

populations, meaning those that historically were the most productive; “genetic legacy” 

populations, which best represent historical genetic diversity; and populations dispersed 

in a way that protects against the effects of catastrophic events.

2.4.5 TRT Population-Level Viability Criteria

The status of an ESU and its component strata depend on the viability status of the 

individual populations that make up that stratum and the ESU. The WLC TRT 

developed criteria to describe a viable population, based on the population attributes of 

abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure as described in McElhany et al. 

(2000). These attributes, also known as viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters, 

are important indicators of population extinction risk—or, conversely, a population’s 

probability of persistence. Guidelines from McElhany et al. (2000) that describe viable 

populations in terms of the VSP attributes are described in Section 2.2 of this recovery 

plan and presented in Table 2-3.

The population-level viability criteria developed by the WLC TRT for Lower Columbia 

River salmon and steelhead can be summarized as follows:

• Abundance/productivity: A viable population demonstrates growth rates, 

productivity, and abundance that produce an acceptable probability of 

population persistence. In highly viable populations, average abundance is 

approximately equivalent to the estimated historical average and the population 

is either stable in size or growing.

• Spatial structure: A viable population has a spatial structure that supports the 

population at the desired productivity, abundance, and diversity levels through 

short-term environmental perturbations, longer-term environmental oscillations, 

and natural patterns of disturbance regimes.

• Diversity: A viable population has sufficient life-history and genetic diversity to 

sustain the population through short-term environmental perturbations and 

provide for long-term evolutionary processes.

Table 2-3 presents the WLC TRT’s population-level viability criteria, along with its 

stratum- and ESU-level viability criteria and its ESU-level strategy guidelines. TRTrecommended metrics and methodologies for use in evaluating the current risk status of 

independent populations are presented in McElhany et al. 2006 and 2007 and explained 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-13

in more detail in Section 2.6 of this recovery plan. In general, the WLC TRT advises that 

the viability of a population be evaluated by first scoring each VSP parameter 

individually and then integrating the VSP scores into an overall viability score using a 

weighted average that emphasizes abundance/productivity, as described in McElhany 

et al. (2007). This approach is recommended because abundance and productivity are 

considered better predictors of extinction risk than are spatial structure and diversity 

(McElhany et al. 2007).

Although the population assessment techniques described in McElhany et al. (2007) 

represent the most current methods available during the recovery planning process for 

Lower Columbia River ESUs, it is expected that evaluation techniques will be refined as 

more data become available and scientific understanding increases.

Table 2-3

Viability Criteria and Guidelines from the Willamette-Lower Columbia Technical 

Recovery Team 

ESU-Level Viability Criteria

1. Every stratum (life history and ecological zone combination) that historically existed should have a high probability of 

persistence. For a stratum to have a high probability of persistence, at least two populations must be at least 95 

percent likely to persist over a 100-year time frame and the average viability of all populations in the stratum must be 

2.25 or higher, using the scoring system presented in McElhany et al. 2003. (This is roughly equivalent to requiring 

that at least 50 percent of the populations in a stratum be viable, but using the average population persistence score 

recognizes that population status is a continuum and not a simple dichotomy of viable or not viable.) 

ESU-Level Strategy Guidelines

1. Until all ESU viability criteria have been achieved, no population should be allowed to deteriorate in its probability of 

persistence.

2. High levels of recovery should be attempted in more populations than identified in the strata viability criteria because 

not all attempts will be successful.

Stratum-Level Viability Criteria

1. Individual populations within a stratum should have persistence probabilities consistent with a high probability of 

stratum persistence.

2. Within a stratum, the populations restored/maintained at viable status or above should be selected to:

a. Allow for normative meta-population processes, including eth viability of “core” populations, which are defined 

as the historically most productive populations.

b. Allow for normative evolutionary processes, including the retention of the genetic diversity represented in 

relatively unmodified historical gene pools. 

c. Minimize susceptibility to catastrophic events.

Population-Level Viability Criteria

Abundance and Productivity 

Recommendation 1: In general, viable populations should demonstrate a combination of population growth rate, 

productivity, and abundance that produces an acceptable probability of population persistence. Various approaches for 

evaluating population productivity and abundance combinations may be acceptable but must meet reasonable standards 

of statistical rigor. 

Recommendation 2: A population with a non-negative growth rate and an average abundance approximately equivalent 

to estimated historical average abundance should be considered to be in the highest persistence category. The estimate 

of historical abundance should be credible, the estimate of current abundance should be averaged over several 

generations, and the growth rate should be estimated with an adequate level of statistical confidence. This criterion takes 

precedence over Recommendation 1.

Within-Population Diversity

Sufficient life-history diversity must exist to sustain a population through short-term environmental perturbations and to 

provide for long-term evolutionary processes. The metrics and benchmarks for evaluating the diversity of a population 

should be evaluated over multiple generations and should include: 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-14

a. Substantial proportion of the diversity of a life-history trait(s) that existed historically

b. Gene flow and genetic diversity should be similar to historical (natural) levels and origins

c. Successful utilization of habitats throughout the range 

d. Resilience and adaptation to environmental fluctuations

Within-Population Spatial Structure 

The spatial structure of a population must support the population at the desired productivity, abundance, and diversity 

levels through short-term environmental perturbations, longer-term environmental oscillations, and natural patterns of 

disturbance regimes. The metrics and benchmarks for evaluating the adequacy of a population’s spatial structure should 

specifically address:

a. Quantity: Spatial structure should be large enough to support growth and abundance, and diversity criteria. 

b. Quality: Underlying habitat spatial structure should be within specified habitat quality limits for life-history 

activities (spawning, rearing, migration, or a combination) taking place within the patches. 

c. Connectivity: Spatial structure should have permanent or appropriate seasonal connectivity to allow adequate 

migration between spawning, rearing, and migration patches. 

d. Dynamics: The spatial structure should not deteriorate in its ability to support the population. The processes 

creating spatial structure are dynamic, so structure will be created and destroyed, but the rate of flux should not 

exceed the rate of creation over time. 

e. Catastrophic Risk: The spatial structure should be geographically distributed in such a way as to minimize the 

probability of a significant portion of the structure being lost because of a single catastrophic event, either 

anthropogenic or natural. 

Source: McElhany et al. (2003).

2.4.6 Population Size

All else being equal, a small population is at greater risk of extinction than a large 

population because of the populations’ responses to environmental variability and other 

processes. Very small populations (in the range of a few hundred fish or fewer) are 

subject to elevated risks from catastrophic events, random fluctuations in individual 

reproductive success (i.e., demographic stochasticity), genetic inbreeding, failure to find 

mates, and other effects. Populations at such small sizes are said to be below a quasiextinction threshold (QET) or critical risk threshold (CRT).3 The WLC TRT documents 

and McElhany et al. (2007) provide estimated CRT values for Lower Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead populations. 

The CRT values vary by species and historical watershed size. Among species, different 

life histories suggest different demographic and other risks. Watershed size is a factor 

because some processes, such as finding a mate, depend on the density of fish rather 

than the absolute number of fish.

At abundances above the CRT but still relatively small, populations are at elevated risk 

because random fluctuations may drive them below the CRT. For example, a population 

with 200 fish that lost half its members because of environmental fluctuations would 

have 100 fish and might be below the CRT. A population with 2,000 fish that lost half its 

members would still have 1,000 fish, which is likely to be above any CRT. The WLC TRT 

referred to the abundance at which a population was substantially vulnerable to 

elevated extinction risk because of environmental fluctuation as a minimum abundance 

threshold (MAT). The most recent MAT values for Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead populations are in McElhany et al. (2007). The MAT values differ by species 

 3 McElhany et al. (2000) and the WLC TRT (McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006) used the term quasi-extinction 

threshold. McElhany et al. (2007) adopted the term critical risk threshold.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-15

and historical watershed size because CRT values differ based on these same attributes 

and because responses to environmental fluctuations vary by species.

2.5 WLC TRT Approach to Assessing Population Status

The WLC TRT provided guidelines, recommended methodologies, and suggested 

benchmarks for evaluating the status of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead 

populations in two technical reports: the Interim Report on Viability Criteria for Willamette 

and Lower Columbia Basin Pacific Salmonids (McElhany et al. 2003) and Revised Viability 

Criteria for Salmon and Steelhead in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins (McElhany et 

al. 2006). Refinements in methodology were captured in Viability Status of Oregon Salmon 

and Steelhead Populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins (McElhany et al. 

2007), which was prepared by the WLC TRT chair, other NMFS Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center staff, ODFW staff, and a consultant working for the Lower Columbia Fish 

Recovery Board. 

The WLC TRT initially applied its techniques for scoring population status in a report 

completed in 2004 (McElhany et al. 2004). In 2006, the TRT applied revisions in its 

scoring methods to Oregon coho populations (McElhany et al. 2006). In 2007, the TRT 

chair, working with other Northwest Fisheries Science Center staff and technical 

recovery planning staff in Oregon and Washington, refined the TRT’s approach and 

applied it to all Oregon salmon and steelhead populations (see McElhany et al. 2007).

The methodologies that the WLC TRT recommended for assessing population status are 

based on evaluation of the population parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity, consistent with guidelines in the NOAA technical 

memorandum Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant 

Units (McElhany et al. 2000). In general, the WLC TRT recommended that the status of a 

population be determined by first evaluating each population attribute separately and 

assigning it a numerical value, on a 0-to-4 scale, and then integrating those values to 

yield a score, also on a 0-to-4 scale, that reflects the overall status of that population (see 

Table 2-4). 

As shown in Table 2-4, a score of zero includes a relatively broad range of persistence 

probabilities (i.e., 0 to 40 percent). The WLC TRT documents characterized this as either 

“very high risk” or “extirpated or nearly so.”4 It often is difficult to distinguish a truly 

extirpated population from one that is at significant short-term risk but not entirely 

extirpated, and the WLC TRT’s 0-to-4 scale does not make this distinction. In discussions 

of population status in this document, we use the terms “very high risk” or “extirpated 

or nearly so” unless a population has been completely blocked from access to historical 

habitat and/or is assumed to have no remnants either in a hatchery program or in the 

 4 The term “extirpated” is preferred to the term “extinct” when describing a population because extirpation 

tends to refer to a small unit (e.g., a population), whereas extinction usually refers to a global phenomenon 

(e.g., an entire ESU). Extirpation also suggests a possibility for recolonization, whereas global extinction 

does not. Despite the preference for the term extirpation over extinction when referring to populations, the 

term extinction is used throughout older WLC TRT documents and the management unit plans.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-16

wild. In this latter case (e.g., White Salmon and Hood River spring Chinook salmon) we 

refer to the populations as extirpated.5

Table 2-4

Population Scores and Corresponding Probability of Persistence (or Extinction) 

 Score* Probability of 

Persistence**

Population 

Status

Probability of 

Extinction** Extinction Risk

0 0 – 40% Very low (VL) 60 – 100% Extinct or at very high risk of 

extinction (VH)

1 40 – 75% Low (L) 25 – 60% Relatively high risk of extinction (H)

2 75 – 95% Medium (M) 5 – 25% Moderate risk of extinction (M)

3 95 – 99% High (H) 1 – 5% Low/negligible risk of extinction (L)

4 > 99% Very high (VH) < 1% Very low risk of extinction (VL)

* Population scores between whole numbers are rounded. For example, a score of 2.75 would be rounded up 

to 3; a score of 2.45 would be rounded down to 2.

** Probability over a 100-year time frame.

Source: McElhany et al. (2006).

In some cases, the WLC TRT suggested quantitative methods of evaluating a particular 

population parameter; when this was not possible because of limitations of data or 

analytical technique, the TRT suggested qualitative approaches (see Table 2-3). Even 

where the TRT did develop quantitative evaluation methods, data for use in evaluating 

the individual VSP attributes often are limited. For these reasons, the WLC TRT noted 

the necessity of applying professional judgment when assessing population status. (For 

more information on the WLC TRT’s approach to evaluating and scoring the population 

attributes of abundance/productivity, spatial structure, and diversity, see McElhany et 

al. 2004, 2006, and 2007.) 

The WLC TRT recommended that the abundance and productivity attributes be 

combined and receive a single attribute score, and that overall population status be 

determined by averaging the population attribute scores for abundance/productivity, 

diversity, and spatial structure, with abundance/productivity weighted twice as heavily 

as the other attributes because abundance and productivity are considered better 

predictors of extinction risk (i.e., total score = 2/3 A&P + 1/6 spatial + 1/6 diversity). 

Furthermore, the WLC TRT recommended that, if the abundance/productivity score is 

lower than the diversity or spatial structure score, the abundance/diversity score be 

used to characterize overall population status, instead of the weighted average method. 

This approach avoids what could be a misleadingly high characterization of overall 

status in cases where a risk factor is driving down a population’s abundance and 

productivity but not affecting its diversity and spatial structure. (For additional

guidance on how to integrate the population attribute scores for to yield a score that 

reflects overall population status, see McElhany et al. 2007, p. 8).

 5 A reintroduction program for spring Chinook salmon in the Hood subbasin is under way using out-of-ESU 

broodstock. Some natural production is occurring there. At this time, the origin of that natural production is 

unknown. For additional discussion of this reintroduction program, see Section 7.4.3.6.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

2-17

The WLC TRT-recommended methods and benchmarks for evaluating population status 

reflect scientific understanding at the time they were developed. In NMFS’ view, the

WLC TRT’s approach represents one of several possible ways of evaluating population 

status that are scientifically credible and that follow WLC TRT guidelines. The 

WLC TRT’s approach itself is not static, as evidenced by the many refinements in 

technique described in the technical reports between 2000 and 2007. NMFS expects that 

techniques for assessing population status will continue to improve over time as 

scientific understanding increases, and that future status evaluations will not necessarily

use the exact techniques demonstrated by the WLC TRT. As more data become available 

and scientific understanding increases, NMFS expects to work with its recovery 

planning partners to further refine techniques for assessing population status.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-1

3. Recovery Goals and Delisting Criteria 

This chapter provides an overview of the recovery goals in the management unit plans 

and the delisting criteria NMFS will use in future status reviews of the Lower Columbia 

River salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS to determine whether delisting is warranted. This 

overview is supplemented with additional detail at the species level in Chapters 6 

through 9. 

Management unit plans incorporate several types of recovery goals. These include 

biological goals that are intended to be consistent with delisting, as well as “broad 

sense” recovery goals that go beyond the requirements for delisting under the ESA to 

address other legislative mandates or social, economic, and ecological values. Broad 

sense recovery goals may have a biological component, or they may be expressed solely 

in terms of aspirations to provide these other values. The biological components of 

management unit plan recovery goals rely heavily on biological viability criteria 

developed by the TRTs. 

The formal delisting criteria are determined by NMFS and must meet ESA requirements. 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate 

objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination in 

accordance with the provisions of the ESA that the species be removed from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 17.11 and 17.12). These criteria are of two kinds: biological viability criteria, which 

deal with population or demographic parameters, and threats criteria, which relate to 

the five listing factors detailed in the ESA (see Sections 1.1 and 3.2.2 of this plan). The 

threats criteria define the conditions under which the listing factors, or threats, can be 

considered to be addressed or mitigated. Together the biological viability and threats 

criteria make up the “objective, measurable criteria” required under section 4(f)(1)(B) for 

the delisting decision.

Delisting criteria may include both technical and policy considerations, such as 

acceptable risk levels at the population, stratum, and ESU/DPS scales. They are based 

on the best available scientific information (including the WLC TRT’s biological viability 

criteria) and incorporate the most current understanding of the ESU or DPS and the 

threats it faces. As this recovery plan is implemented, additional information may 

become available that improves our understanding of the status of populations and 

ESUs/DPSs, how best to evaluate population and ESU/DPS status, threats and how to 

evaluate their impacts on population and ESU/DPS status, or the extent to which threats 

have been abated. If appropriate, NMFS will review and revise delisting criteria in the 

future based on this new information. 

NMFS has ultimate responsibility for final recovery plans and delisting decisions and 

must take into account all relevant information, including, but not limited to, biological 

and policy considerations developed during the recovery planning process. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-2

3.1 Management Unit Plan Recovery Goals 

Each management unit plan includes broad, conceptual statements of purpose and 

objectives, as well as broad sense recovery goals and biological goals that local planners 

believe are consistent with delisting.1 Goals are identified at the population level but 

also have been coordinated among management unit plans to produce stratum- and 

ESU-level recovery scenarios. These recovery scenarios and their corresponding 

population-level biological goals are an important linkage between the management 

unit plans and the NMFS delisting criteria.

3.1.1 Plan Purposes and Broad Sense Recovery Goals

3.1.1.1 Washington Management Unit Recovery Plan

The Washington management unit plan is an integrated, ecosystem-focused plan that is 

intended to serve planning needs associated with the Endangered Species Act, the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s fish and wildlife subbasin planning 

process, and state salmon recovery and watershed planning. For this reason, the 

Washington plan includes some species that are not addressed in this recovery plan, 

such as steelhead in the Coast ecozone, which are part of the Southwest Washington 

DPS and not listed under the ESA, and also bull trout, a freshwater trout species that is 

listed as threatened under the ESA and is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

The Washington management unit plan’s overall vision is twofold:

• To recover Washington Lower Columbia River salmon, steelhead, and bull trout to 

healthy, harvestable levels that will sustain productive recreational, commercial, and 

tribal fisheries through the restoration and protection of the ecosystems upon which 

they depend and the implementation of supportive hatchery and harvest practices

• To sustain and enhance the health of other native fish and wildlife species in the 

lower Columbia through the protection of the ecosystems upon which they depend, 

the control of non-native species, and the restoration of balanced predator/prey 

relationships (LCFRB 2010a p. 1-2)

The first part of this vision encompasses a goal of delisting Lower Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead as one component of achieving the overall vision. 

Harvestability is a key aspect of the vision for recovery presented in the Washington 

management unit plan and represents what is considered a “broad sense” recovery goal. 

The plan defines a viable species as one that is no longer in danger of extinction or likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable future and can therefore be removed from 

listing under the ESA. The plan defines a harvestable species as one that has achieved 

viability and has abundance sufficient to allow direct and sustainable recreational, 

commercial, and tribal harvest without jeopardizing the species’ viability (LCFRB 

2010a). 

 1 Section 3.2 discusses NMFS’ view of the management unit plans’ recovery goals. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-3

The Washington management unit plan also states that harvestability goals are reached 

when adult natural production exceeds recovery targets and fish can be directly 

harvested at levels that maintain spawning escapement at or above those targets (LCFRB 

2010a). Harvest of listed fish that have not achieved their target status is typically 

limited to indirect harvest in mixed-stock fisheries targeted on strong wild runs or 

hatchery fish. Allowable levels of indirect harvest impacts are established through ESA 

regulatory processes (LCFRB 2010a). 

3.1.1.2 Oregon Lower Columbia Management Unit Recovery Plan

Like the Washington management unit recovery plan, the Oregon Lower Columbia 

management unit recovery plan is designed to meet multiple needs. It serves as both a 

federal recovery plan under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and a state conservation 

plan under Oregon’s Native Fish Conservation Policy. The document’s overall purpose 

is to guide the implementation of actions needed to recover Lower Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead in Oregon (ODFW 2010). In addition, the plan addresses some 

species and populations that are not part of the Lower Columbia River ESUs or DPS, 

such as steelhead in the Coast ecozone (these are part of the Southwest Washington DPS

and not listed under the ESA) and Clackamas River spring Chinook salmon (which are 

part of the Upper Willamette ESU). 

Also like the Washington management unit recovery plan, the Oregon Lower Columbia 

management unit plan contains broad sense goals that encompass ESA delisting. The 

plan’s goals are as follows:

• To achieve ESA delisting.

• To achieve broad sense recovery, defined as having Oregon populations of 

naturally produced salmon and steelhead sufficiently abundant, productive, and 

diverse (in terms of life histories and geographic distribution) that the ESU as a 

whole will be self-sustaining and will provide significant ecological, cultural, and 

economic benefits (ODFW 2010)

The second goal was developed to fulfill the mission of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds to restore “Oregon’s native fish populations and the aquatic systems that 

support them to productive and sustainable levels that will provide substantial 

environmental, cultural, and economic benefits” (ODFW 2010). 

Oregon’s broad sense goal is consistent with ESA delisting but is designed to achieve 

levels of performance that are more robust than those needed to remove ESUs/DPSs 

from ESA protection. The plan’s vision is that ESA delisting goals would be achieved 

first, during an extended and stepwise process of achieving the broad sense recovery 

goal, which would be based on a combination of legislative mandates, cultural 

commitments, social values, and voluntary contributions (ODFW 2010).

Oregon broke down its broad sense recovery goal into two criteria:

• All Oregon LCR salmon and steelhead populations have a very low extinction risk

and are highly viable over 100 years throughout their historical range. A very low 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-4

extinction risk means a less than 1 percent probability of extinction over a 100-year 

period, based on an integrated assessment of the population’s abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity.

• The majority of Lower Columbia salmon and steelhead populations are capable of 

contributing social, cultural, economic and aesthetic benefits on a regular and 

sustainable basis (ODFW 2010).

In working toward the broad sense recovery goal, the Oregon Lower Columbia plan 

focuses on the status of Oregon populations only; meeting the broad sense recovery 

criteria does not depend on the performance of populations in Washington. 

3.1.1.3 White Salmon Management Unit Recovery Plan

The primary goal of the White Salmon management unit recovery plan is to restore 

White Salmon populations of the Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs to a status 

consistent with overall ESU delisting criteria. The White Salmon management unit plan 

incorporates a general broad sense recovery goal to achieve a status beyond ESA 

delisting that incorporates local and traditional uses of salmon, including those 

associated with rural and Native American values. Local recovery planners and plan 

implementers may choose to define additional broad sense goals for the White Salmon 

management unit recovery plan in the future (NMFS 2013).

3.1.2 Management Unit Plan Biological Recovery Goals 

Recovery planners at the management unit level largely followed the guidelines of the 

WLC TRT in assessing the viability of salmon and steelhead populations, strata, and 

ESUs/DPS for the purposes of setting recovery goals. The plans adopted the WLC TRT’s 

definitions of a viable ESU or DPS (i.e., every historical stratum having a high 

probability of persistence) and a viable stratum (at least two populations being highly 

likely to persist and the average population persistence score being 2.25 or higher). In 

addition, the management unit planners relied heavily on the WLC TRT’s guidelines 

regarding abundance and productivity, spatial structure, and diversity in setting 

viability goals for individual populations. In some cases, however, their approaches 

differed somewhat from the TRT’s and from each other. Detail on methodologies, 

including discussion of any differences, can be found in Chapter 5. Chapters 6 through 9

present population-specific goals, such as abundance and productivity targets.

3.1.3 Recovery Scenarios for ESU/DPS

Although the WLC TRT defined ESU- and stratum-level viability, it did not specify 

target viability levels for individual populations consistent with those definitions. 

Conceivably, the TRT’s ESU-level viability criteria could be met through many different 

combinations of individual population status, with the “best” combination being a 

function of biological and ecological conditions on the ground and local community 

values and interests. Management unit recovery planners used the TRT’s ESU-level 

viability criteria to guide decisions about which populations to target for which levels of 

persistence probability.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-5

Through an iterative process, recovery planners for the Washington Lower Columbia, 

Oregon Lower Columbia, and White Salmon management units collaborated to reach 

agreement on a target status for each population. The target statuses within an ESU or 

DPS are referred to collectively as the “recovery scenario” for that ESU or DPS. Setting 

the target status for each population in an ESU or DPS (i.e., developing the recovery 

scenario) involved consideration of several factors:

• Productivity. Which populations are “core” populations that historically were 

the most highly productive? 

• Genetic diversity. Which populations are “legacy” populations that represent 

important historical genetic diversity?

• Geographical location. Are the populations targeted for high persistence 

probabilities dispersed in a way that minimizes risk from catastrophic events? 

• Feasibility. Which populations can be expected to make significant progress 

toward recovery because of existing programs, the absence of apparent 

impediments to recovery, and other management considerations?

The recovery scenarios for the salmon ESUs and steelhead DPS are presented in Table 3-

1. The table shows the target status of each population and that population’s expected 

level of contribution to ESU/DPS recovery, using the terminology of “primary” (P),

“contributing” (C), and “stabilizing” (S), taken from the Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans. Primary populations are targeted for restoration to a high or 

very high probability of persistence. Many primary populations currently have a 

medium probability of persistence, and some are at low or very low but are targeted for 

high or very high persistence probability in order to achieve a high probability of 

stratum and ESU persistence. Contributing populations are those for which some 

restoration will be needed to achieve a stratum-wide average persistence probability of 

2.25 or higher. Stabilizing populations are those that are targeted for maintenance at 

their baseline persistence probabilities, which are likely to be low or very low. A 

population might be designated as stabilizing if the feasibility of restoration is low and 

the uncertainty associated with restoration is high. Chapters 6 through 9 describe the 

target status of each population further in terms of the viability parameters of 

abundance and productivity, diversity, and spatial structure (see Tables 6-4, 7-4, 8-2, 

and 9-4).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-6

Table 3-1

Recovery Scenarios for LCR Chinook, Columbia River Chum, LCR Steelhead, and LCR Coho

Chinook Chum Steelhead Coho

Fall Late Fall Spring Fall Summer Winter3 Summer

Contribution 1 Target 2 ContributionTarget Contribu

-tion

Target ContributionTarget ContributionTarget ContributionTarget ContributionTarget ContributionTarget

Youngs Bay (OR) S L ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ S VL ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ S VL

Grays/Chinook (WA) C  M+ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P VH ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

Big Creek (OR) C  L ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ S VL ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ S VL

Eloch./Skam. (WA) P H ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

Clatskanie (OR) P  H ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P VH

Mill/Aber./Ger. (WA) P H ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ C M

COAST

Scappoose (OR) P H ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P VH

Lower Cowlitz (WA) C M+ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ C M ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

Coweeman (WA) P H+ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

SF Toutle (WA) ‐‐ ‐‐ P H+ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

NF Toutle (WA)

P

(Toutle)

H+ ‐‐ ‐‐

C

(Toutle)

M

P H ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

Upper Cowlitz (WA) ‐‐ ‐‐ P H+

C

(Cowlitz) M C(Cowlitz) M

P H ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

Cispus (WA) ‐‐ ‐‐ P H+ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

Tilton (WA)

S

(Upper 

Cowlitz)

VL

‐‐ ‐‐ S VL ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ C L ‐‐ ‐‐ S VL

Kalama (WA) C M ‐‐ ‐‐ C L C M ‐‐ ‐‐ P H+ P H C L

NF Lewis (WA) P VH P H ‐‐ ‐‐ C M S VL C L

EF Lewis (WA)

P

(Lewis)

H+ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

P

(Lewis)

H ‐‐ ‐‐ P H P H P H

Salmon (WA) S VL ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ S VL ‐‐ ‐‐ S VL ‐‐ ‐‐ S VL

Clackamas (OR) C M ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐4 C M ‐‐ ‐‐ P H6 ‐‐ ‐‐ P VH

Sandy (OR) C M P VH P H P H ‐‐ ‐‐ P VH ‐‐ ‐‐ P H

CASCADE

Washougal (WA) P H+ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P H+ ‐‐ ‐‐ C M P H C M+

Lower Gorge (WA/OR) C5 M ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ P5 VH ‐‐ ‐‐ P5 H ‐‐ ‐‐ P5 H

Upper Gorge (WA/OR) C5 M ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ S

5 L P (Wind) VH

White Salmon (WA) C M ‐‐ ‐‐ C L+ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

P

(U. 

Gorge/W.

Salmon)

H

GORGE

Hood (OR) P H6 ‐‐ ‐‐ P VH

C5

(Upper 

Gorge)

M

‐‐ ‐‐ P H P H6 P

(U.Gorge/

Hood)

H6

1 Indicates contribution to recovery: P = primary, C = contributing, S = stabilizing; for description, see Section 3.1.3. 2 VL = very low persistence probability , L = low persistence probability, M = moderate persistence probability , H = high persistence probability, VH = very high persistence probability. 3 Winter steelhead of the Coast stratum are included in the Washington and Oregon management unit plans for state-level planning purposes, but they are not included in this table because they 

are part of the unlisted Southwest Washington DPS, not the listed Lower Columbia River DPS. 4 Clackamas spring Chinook are part of the Upper Willamette spring Chinook ESU. 5 Designation for shared population based on WA objectives, with support to be provided by OR portion of population, since WA has a larger proportion of the population area. 

6 The Oregon management unit plan (ODFW 2010) notes that achieving this target status is highly unlikely for various reasons (see pp. 176-77, 186, 195, 200 of ODFW 2010).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-7

The scenarios in Table 3-1 meet the WLC TRT criteria for high probability of persistence 

at the stratum and ESU or DPS levels with the exceptions of the Gorge fall Chinook, 

Gorge spring Chinook, and Gorge chum strata. In each of these strata, only one 

population is targeted to achieve a high probability of persistence. Local recovery 

planners documented the basis for this divergence from the TRT’s criteria. 

In Washington, planners factored feasibility into target status designations. Thus for the 

Gorge fall Chinook, spring Chinook, and chum strata, Washington recovery planners set 

the target status at levels they believed were feasible, even though these levels were not 

consistent with the WLC TRT’s criteria for high probability of stratum persistence 

(LCFRB 2010a). Washington planners noted that the likelihood of meeting TRT criteria 

was highly uncertain because the Bonneville Dam reservoir inundates historical 

spawning habitat for fall Chinook and chum salmon that spawn in tributaries above the 

dam, the dam creates passage impediments, there is uncertainty regarding the extent to 

which some populations functioned independently historically, and, in the case of White 

Salmon spring Chinook, the population has been extirpated. In contrast, Oregon 

recovery planners set target viability status at levels consistent with the WLC TRT’s 

criteria. However, in the case of the Hood River populations and the Oregon portions of 

the shared Gorge populations, Oregon recovery planners noted a very low probability of 

meeting those goals, in part because there is little habitat currently available and because 

anthropogenic impacts are unlikely to change in the near future (ODFW 2010).

In addition, both the Washington and Oregon management unit planners raised 

questions regarding stratum and population delineations and the historical role of the 

Gorge populations (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). Questions included whether the 

populations were highly persistent historically, whether they functioned as independent 

populations within their stratum in the same way that the Coast and Cascade 

populations did, and whether the Gorge stratum itself should be considered a separate 

stratum from the Cascade stratum. While the Washington management unit plan simply 

raised issues of uncertainty in stratum delineations between the Cascade and Gorge 

strata and in Chinook and chum population delineations (LCFRB 2010a), the Oregon 

management unit plan discussed the issue in more depth (see Appendix B of ODFW 

2010). For example, the Oregon management unit plan cites a NMFS GIS analysis (see 

Busch et al. 2011) that used an intrinsic habitat potential model to show that potential 

habitat for Gorge populations, based on existing geomorphic features, is very small, 

even in relatively large watersheds (ODFW 2010). This suggests that, even historically, 

many Gorge populations might not have been sufficiently sized to be reproductively 

isolated from other populations and to exhibit the productivity required to ensure longterm sustainability. For all three salmon ESUs and the steelhead DPS, the Oregon 

management unit plan recommends that the Gorge stratum’s historical status and 

population structure be reevaluated and that recovery goals be revised if modifications 

are made (ODFW 2010). 

Finally, for Gorge fall and spring Chinook and Gorge chum, management unit planners 

developed recovery scenarios that exceed the TRT criteria in the Cascade stratum as a 

way of mitigating for increased risk to the ESU as a result of not achieving the 

WLC TRT’s stratum-level criteria in the Gorge. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-8

3.2 NMFS Delisting Criteria

The requirement for determining that a species no longer requires the protection of the 

ESA is that the species is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future, based on evaluation of the listing factors 

specified in ESA section 4(a)(1). To remove the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU, 

Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS, Lower Columbia River coho ESU, or Columbia 

River chum ESU from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants, NMFS must determine that the ESU or DPS, as evaluated under the ESA listing 

factors, is no longer likely to become endangered. 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate 

objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination in 

accordance with the provisions of the ESA that the species be removed from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12; 50 CFR 

223.102 and 224.101). The biological and threats criteria in this plan, taken together, meet 

this statutory requirement.

3.2.1 Biological Criteria

NMFS has considered the WLC TRT’s viability criteria (McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006,

summarized in Table 2-3), the additional recommendations in McElhany et al. (2007), the 

recovery scenarios (summarized in Table 3-1) and population-level goals in the 

management unit plans, and the questions the management unit planners raised 

regarding the historical role of the Gorge strata. 

NMFS has concluded that the WLC TRT’s criteria adequately describe the characteristics 

of an ESU that meet or exceed the requirement for determining that a species no longer 

needs the protection of the ESA. These criteria provide a framework within which to 

evaluate specific recovery scenarios. NMFS has evaluated the management unit plan 

recovery scenarios (summarized in Table 3-1 of this recovery plan) and population-level 

abundance, productivity goals2 (see Chapters 6 through 9) and has concluded that they

also adequately describe the characteristics of an ESU that no longer needs the 

protections of the ESA.3 NMFS endorses the recovery scenarios and population-level 

goals in the management unit plans (summarized here in Table 3-1 and Sections 6.3, 7.3, 

8.3, and 9.3) as one of multiple possible scenarios consistent with delisting.

As noted above, the recovery scenarios in Table 3-1 are consistent with the WLC TRT’s 

recommendations at the stratum and ESU or DPS level, except for the Gorge fall 

Chinook, Gorge spring Chinook, and Gorge chum strata. In those strata, the recovery 

scenarios target only one population to achieve a high probability of persistence. As a 

way of mitigating for increased risk in the Gorge strata, the recovery scenarios exceed 

 2 NMFS also evaluated the goals for spatial structure and diversity in the Oregon management unit plan 

(ODFW 2010). Washington recovery planners assumed that productivity and abundance levels consistent 

with significant improvements in persistence probability could not be achieved without also addressing 

limitations in spatial structure and diversity. Thus, spatial structure and diversity improvements are implicit 

in the abundance and productivity targets in the Washington management unit plan (LCFRB 2010a). 

3 See Sections 6.7, 7.7, 8.7, and 9.7 for additional detail on biological criteria at the species level. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-9

the WLC TRT criteria in the Cascade fall Chinook, Cascade spring Chinook, and 

Cascade chum strata. 

In its revised viability criteria (McElhany et al. 2006), the WLC TRT noted the need for 

case-by-case evaluations of the continuum of ESU-level risk associated with some strata 

not meeting the TRT’s persistence criteria. In commenting on the recovery scenarios 

presented in the interim Washington management unit plan4—and by extension the 

recovery scenarios in Table 3-1 of this plan—the WLC TRT stated that achieving the 

recovery scenarios would improve the status of the Gorge strata, even if the TRT’s 

criteria for those strata were not met. The TRT also noted that targeting the Cascade 

strata for very high persistence (above the minimum TRT criteria) would help lower 

ESU extinction risk. In addition, the TRT noted that the Gorge and Cascade strata are 

relatively similar compared to the Cascade and Coast strata. Also significant in the 

TRT’s view was that options for recovery of the Gorge strata would be preserved, in case 

future conditions or analyses were to require high stratum persistence for ESU viability 

(McElhany et al. 2006). 

Based on the information provided by the WLC TRT and the management unit recovery 

planners, NMFS concludes that the recovery scenarios in Table 3-1 and the associated 

population-level abundance and productivity goals in Sections 6.3, 7.3, 8.3, and 9.3

represent one of multiple possible scenarios that would meet biological criteria for 

delisting. 

NMFS also agrees with the management unit planners that the historical role of the 

Gorge populations and strata merits further examination. The extent to which 

compensation in the Cascade strata is ultimately considered necessary to achieve an 

acceptably low risk level at the ESU or DPS level will depend on how questions 

regarding the historical role of the Gorge populations are resolved.

NMFS therefore has developed the following biological criteria for the four listed ESUs 

and DPS addressed by this plan (NMFS has amended the WLC TRT’s criteria for clarity 

and to incorporate the concept that each stratum should have a probability of 

persistence consistent with its historical condition, thus allowing for resolution of 

questions regarding the Gorge strata):

• All strata that historically existed have a high probability of persistence or have a 

probability of persistence consistent with their historical condition. 

• High probability of stratum persistence is defined as: 

a. At least two populations in the stratum have at least a 95 percent probability 

of persistence over a 100-year time frame (i.e., two populations with a score 

of 3.0 or higher based on the TRT’s scoring system). 

b. Other populations in the stratum have persistence probabilities consistent 

with a high probability of stratum persistence (i.e., the average of all stratum 

 4 In February 2006, NMFS approved the December 2004 Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish 

& Wildlife Subbasin Plan as in interim regional recovery plan. The 2010 revised version of that plan (LCFRB 

2010a) is incorporated into this ESU-level plan as Appendix B.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-10

population scores is 2.25 or higher, based on the TRT’s scoring system). (See 

Section 2.6 for a brief discussion of the TRT’s scoring system.) 

c. Populations targeted for a high probability of persistence are distributed in a 

way that minimizes risk from catastrophic events, maintains migratory 

connections among populations, and protects within-stratum diversity.

• A probability of persistence consistent with historical condition refers to the 

concept that strata that historically were small or had complex population 

structures may not have met Criteria A through C, above, but could still be 

considered sufficiently viable if they provide a contribution to overall ESU 

viability similar to their historical contribution.

The recovery scenarios in Table 3-1 are consistent with these biological criteria. 

3.2.2 Threats Criteria

In addition to a species achieving a certain biological status to be considered for 

reclassification or delisting, the threats to a listed species must have been ameliorated so 

as not to limit attainment of its desired biological status. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 

organizes NMFS’ consideration of threats into five factors:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range

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

C. Disease or predation

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

E. Other natural or human-made factors affecting the species’ continued existence

These factors may not all be equally important in securing the continuing recovery of a 

particular ESU, and each ESU faces a different set of threats. It also is possible that 

current perceived threats will become insignificant in the future as a result of changes in 

the natural environment or changes in the way threats affect the entire life cycle of 

salmon and steelhead. 

NMFS will use the listing factor criteria below in determining whether an ESU or DPS 

has recovered to the point that it no longer requires the protections of the ESA:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species’ 

habitat or range: 

1. Habitat-related threats have been ameliorated such that they do not limit 

attainment of the desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent 

populations as defined by the biological criteria in this recovery plan, and 

such that the desired status will be maintained.

a. Recovery plan actions addressing habitat limiting factors have 

been substantially implemented, including related research, 

monitoring, and evaluation actions.

b. The threat reduction targets for habitat outlined in Sections 6.5, 

7.4.2, 7.5.2, 7.6.2, 8.5, and 9.5 of this recovery plan have been met 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-11

or habitat impacts are otherwise consistent with the desired status 

of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations. To evaluate 

whether this criterion has been met, and to track and periodically 

evaluate progress, specific metrics for assessing habitat conditions 

and action effectiveness will be needed.

c. Trends in overall habitat conditions, based on evaluation of the 

combined effect of factors, including, but not limited to, habitat 

access, hydrograph/water quantity, physical habitat quality and 

quantity, and water temperature and other water quality 

parameters, are stable or improving.

d. Functioning habitat areas, including those expected to be less 

vulnerable to impacts from climate change, have been protected.

Other actions to support adaptation to climate change impacts 

have been implemented.

2. Hydropower and/or flood control dam-related threats have been 

ameliorated such that they do not limit attainment of the desired status of 

the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations, as defined by the biological 

criteria in this recovery plan, and such that the desired status will be 

maintained.

a. Recovery plan actions addressing hydropower limiting factors 

have been substantially implemented, including related 

research, monitoring, and evaluation actions.

b. FERC Settlement Agreements and relevant actions from the 

applicable FCRPS Biological Opinion have been substantially 

implemented.

c. The threat reduction targets for hydropower outlined in Sections 

6.5, 7.4.2, 7.5.2, 7.6.2, 8.5, and 9.5 of this recovery plan have been 

met or hydropower impacts are otherwise consistent with the 

desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations. 

To evaluate whether this criterion has been met, and to track 

and periodically evaluate progress, specific metrics related to 

hydropower impacts (including passage, and flow, temperature, 

and sediment), population performance (where populations are 

being reestablished above dams), and action effectiveness will 

be needed.

d. Hydropower management actions will support ESU persistence 

given projected effects of climate change.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes:

1. Harvest-related threats have been ameliorated such that they do not limit 

attainment of the desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent 

populations as defined by the biological criteria in this recovery plan, and 

such that the desired status will be maintained.

a. Recovery plan actions addressing harvest-related limiting factors 

have been substantially implemented, including related research, 

monitoring, and evaluation actions.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-12

b. The threat reduction targets for harvest outlined in Sections 6.5, 

7.4.2, 7.5.2, 7.6.2, 8.5, and 9.5 of this recovery plan have been met 

or harvest impacts are otherwise consistent with the desired status 

of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations. To evaluate 

whether this criterion has been met, and to track and periodically 

evaluate progress, specific metrics related to harvest impacts and 

action effectiveness will be needed. 

2. Any other threats related to overutilization for commercial, recreational, 

or educational purposes (for example, utilization for research purposes) 

have been ameliorated such that they do not limit attainment of the 

desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations as defined 

by the biological criteria in this recovery plan, and such that the desired 

status will be maintained.

C. Disease or predation:

1. Predation-related threats have been ameliorated such that they do not 

limit attainment of the desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent 

populations as defined by the biological criteria in this recovery plan, and 

such that the desired status will be maintained.

a. Recovery plan actions related to threats from predation by marine 

mammals, birds, and fish (including predation among salmon 

species and predation by hatchery-origin salmon on natural-origin 

salmon) have been substantially implemented, including related 

research, monitoring, and evaluation actions.

b. The threat reduction targets for predation outlined in Sections 6.5, 

7.4.2, 7.5.2, 7.6.2, 8.5, and 9.5 of this recovery plan have been met 

or threats from predation are otherwise consistent with the 

desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations. To 

evaluate whether this criterion has been met, and to track and 

periodically evaluate progress, specific metrics related to 

predation and action effectiveness will be needed.

2. Disease-related threats have been ameliorated such that they do not limit 

attainment of the desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent 

populations as defined by the biological criteria in this recovery plan, and 

such that the desired status will be maintained.

a. Hatchery management practices sufficient to limit disease-related 

threats are being implemented. 

b. Monitoring is in place to detect disease and disease impacts on 

population status. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:

1. Regulatory mechanisms have been maintained and/or established and 

are being implemented in a way that supports attaining and maintaining 

the desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations, as 

defined by the biological criteria in this recovery plan.

a. Regulatory programs that govern land use and resource 

utilization are in place and are adequate to protect salmon and 

steelhead habitat, including water quality, water quantity, and 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-13

stream structure and function, and to attain and maintain the 

biological recovery criteria in this recovery plan. 

b. States have established and protected instream flow levels in a 

manner consistent with achieving and maintaining the desired 

status for the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations as defined 

by the biological criteria in this recovery plan.

c. Regulatory programs are in place and are adequate to manage 

fisheries at levels consistent with the biological recovery criteria of 

this recovery plan. 

d. Regulatory, control, and education measures are in place to 

prevent introductions of non-native plant and animal species.

e. Regulatory programs have adequate funding, prioritization, 

enforcement, coordination mechanisms, and research, monitoring, 

and evaluation to ensure habitat protection and effective 

management of fisheries.

E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting continued existence:

1. Hatchery-related threats have been ameliorated such that they do not 

limit attainment of the desired status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent 

populations as defined by the biological criteria in this recovery plan, and 

such that the desired status will be maintained.

a. Recovery plan actions related to threats from hatcheries have been 

substantially implemented, including related research, 

monitoring, and evaluation actions. Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans are complete for all hatchery programs and 

NMFS has authorized all programs under the ESA.

b. The threat reduction targets for hatcheries outlined in Sections 6.5, 

7.4.2, 7.5.2, 7.6.2, 8.5, and 9.5 of this recovery plan have been met 

or hatchery impacts are otherwise consistent with the desired 

status of the ESU/DPS and its constituent populations. To 

evaluate whether this criterion has been met, specific metrics for

evaluating the genetic and ecological risks posed to natural-origin 

salmon and steelhead by hatchery-origin salmon and steelhead 

may need to be developed, tracked, and periodically evaluated.

c. Hatchery programs are being operated in a manner consistent 

with the target status of each population, and appropriate criteria 

are being used for managing the interaction of hatchery and 

natural populations, including hatchery-origin fish spawning 

naturally. 

d. Hatcheries are operated using appropriate ecological, genetic, and 

risk containment measures for (1) release of hatchery juveniles, 

(2) handling of natural-origin adults, (3) withdrawal of water for 

hatchery use, (4) discharge of hatchery effluent, and (5) 

maintenance of fish health during propagation in the hatchery. 

e. Monitoring and evaluation plans are in place and being 

implemented to measure population status, hatchery 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-14

effectiveness, and ecological, genetic, and demographic risk 

containment measures. 

2. Other natural or human-caused factors have been accounted for such that 

they do not limit attainment of the desired status of the ESU/DPS and its 

constituent populations as defined by the biological criteria in this 

recovery plan, and such that the desired status will be maintained.

3.2.3 Delisting Criteria Conclusion

NMFS will propose to delist the four listed ESUs addressed by this plan when the 

following criteria are achieved:

1. All strata that historically existed have a high probability of persistence or have a 

probability of persistence consistent with their historical condition. 

High probability of stratum persistence is defined as: 

a. At least two populations in the stratum have at least a 95 percent probability 

of persistence over a 100-year time frame (i.e., two populations with a score 

of 3.0 or higher based on the TRT’s scoring system). 

b. Other populations in the stratum have persistence probabilities consistent 

with a high probability of stratum persistence (i.e., the average of all stratum 

population scores is 2.25 or higher, based on the TRT’s scoring system). (See 

Section 2.6 for a brief discussion of the TRT’s scoring system.) 

c. Populations targeted for a high probability of persistence are distributed in a 

way that minimizes risk from catastrophic events, maintains migratory 

connections among populations, and protects within-stratum diversity.

A probability of persistence consistent with historical condition refers to the 

concept that strata that historically were small or had complex population 

structures may not have met Criteria A through C, above, but could still be 

considered sufficiently viable if they provide a contribution to overall ESU 

viability similar to their historical contribution.

2. The threats criteria identified in Section 3.2.2 have been met. 

The recovery scenarios in Table 3-1 and the associated population-level abundance and 

productivity goals presented in Sections 6.3, 7.3, 8.3, and 9.3 of this recovery plan 

illustrate one possible set of scenarios in which these criteria could be met. The criteria 

stated above represent a point at which delisting is very likely but not necessarily the 

only scenario under which NMFS would propose to delist. Nothing in these criteria 

should be understood as precluding a delisting determination under a different

scenario, provided that the ESU is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future. 

In accordance with our responsibilities under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, NMFS will 

conduct reviews of status of each ESU at least once every 5 years to evaluate the ESUs’ 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

3-15

status and determine whether the ESUs should be removed from the list or changed in 

status. NMFS will base such evaluations on the best scientific information available at 

that time.

3.3 Achieving Broad Sense Goals after Delisting

NMFS is supportive of the broad sense recovery goals in the management unit plans and 

believes that the most expeditious way to achieve them is by achieving viability of 

natural populations and delisting. Upon delisting, NMFS will work with co-managers 

and local stakeholders, using our non-ESA authorities, to pursue broad sense recovery 

goals while continuing to maintain robust natural populations.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-1

4. Regional Limiting Factors and Strategies

The reasons for a species’ decline are generally described in terms of limiting factors and 

threats. Limiting factors are biological, physical, or chemical conditions and associated 

ecological processes and interactions that limit a species’ viability. Threats are human 

activities or natural events, such as floodplain development or drought, that cause or 

contribute to limiting factors.1 A single limiting factor may be caused by one or more 

threats. Likewise, a single threat may cause or contribute to more than one limiting 

factor and may affect more than one life stage. In addition, the impact of past threats 

may continue to contribute to current limiting factors through legacy effects. For 

example, current high water temperature could be the result of earlier riparian practices 

that removed vegetation from the streambank. Or the effects of previous harvest 

practices may be evident in the relatively small number of life history strategies that 

currently exist among salmon and steelhead. Designing effective recovery strategies and 

actions requires an understanding of the range and impact of limiting factors and threats 

affecting the species, across its entire life cycle.

Addressing multiple ESUs in a single recovery plan presents an opportunity to evaluate 

limiting factors and threats at the regional scale, discern large-scale patterns in ecological 

conditions, and identify regional approaches to recovery. This regional, multi-species 

perspective is useful in understanding the scale and scope of actions needed to recover 

the four species addressed by this plan; it also should aid in identifying recovery 

approaches that provide maximum biological benefit and make effective use of limited 

resources. Toward that end, this chapter takes a subdomain-scale look at recovery. The 

chapter gives overviews of limiting factors, at the regional scale, that have affected 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead and describes regional strategies to 

address the specific limiting factors identified and analyzed in the management unit 

plans (see Chapters 6 through 9). The regional strategies are general approaches that 

either will benefit multiple ESUs or can be applied in ways that target the specific needs 

of each species. Chapters 6 through 9 supplement the regional strategies with 

complementary strategies that provide greater specificity at the species and stratum 

levels. 

The regional strategies also highlight the need for domain-scale coordination to 

implement effective recovery strategies in tributary habitat, estuary habitat, 

hydropower, hatcheries, harvest, and ecological interactions. Coordination needs are 

discussed in Chapter 11, “Implementation.” 

4.1 Tributary Habitat

Historically, tributary habitat in the ranges of the Lower Columbia River salmon ESUs 

and steelhead DPS supported millions of fish in populations that were adapted to the 

characteristics of individual watersheds. Stream channels contained abundant large 

wood from the surrounding riparian forests that helped structure pools and create 

 1 In this recovery plan, the term limiting factors is used to indicate the full range of factors that are believed 

to be affecting the viability of salmon and steelhead, and not to indicate the single factor that is most 

limiting. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-2

complex habitat in streams. Beaver activity also contributed to diverse instream habitats, 

with deep pools and strong connections to floodplains. Water temperatures sufficient to 

support salmon and steelhead throughout the year were common. Upland and riparian 

conditions allowed for the storage and release of cool water during the dry summer 

months and provided sufficient shade to keep water temperatures cool. Extensive and 

abundant riparian vegetation armored streambanks, thus shading the water, protecting 

against erosion, and supporting an abundant food supply. Dynamic patterns of channel 

migration in floodplains continually created complex channel, side-channel, and offchannel habitats. Over the last 150 years, tributary habitat conditions have been severely 

degraded.

4.1.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors and Threats

Tributary habitat degradation from past and/or current land and water use is a limiting 

factor for all Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. Widespread 

development and other land use activities have disrupted watershed processes, reduced 

water quality, and diminished habitat quantity, quality, and complexity in most of the 

lower Columbia River subbasins. Past and/or current land use or water management 

activities have adversely affected stream and side channel structure, riparian conditions, 

floodplain function, sediment conditions, and water quality and quantity, as well as the 

watershed processes that create and maintain properly functioning conditions for 

salmon and steelhead (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). Specific activities and their impacts 

include the following: 

• Logging and other forest management practices. Logging on unstable slopes and in 

riparian areas has led to the degradation of watershed processes. Improperly 

located, constructed, or maintained forest roads have disrupted stream flow patterns 

and sediment supply processes, disconnected streams from floodplains, and, in 

riparian areas, reduced wood recruitment to streams. The historical use of splash 

dams to transport logs reduced instream structure and available spawning gravel in 

several stream systems. Impacts continue in many areas, and the legacy of historical 

practices will continue for some time. 

• Agricultural activities. Agricultural activities have diminished overall habitat 

productivity and connectivity and degraded riparian areas and floodplains in many 

areas of the lower Columbia region, especially along lowland valley bottoms. 

Historical floodplain habitats have been lost through levee construction and the 

filling of wetlands. Runoff from agricultural lands where pesticides, herbicides, and 

fertilizers are applied has reduced water quality. Water withdrawal for irrigation has 

altered stream flow and raised water temperatures. Livestock grazing has affected 

soil stability (via trampling), reduced streamside vegetation (via foraging), and 

delivered potentially harmful bacteria and nutrients (animal wastes) to streams. 

• Construction of fish passage barriers. The main barriers in lower Columbia 

watersheds are dams and culverts, with occasional barriers such as irrigation 

diversion structures, fish weirs, beaver dams, road crossings, tide gates, channel 

alterations, and localized temperature increases (LCFRB 2010a). Although dams are 

responsible for the greatest share of blocked habitat, inadequate culverts make up 

the vast majority of all barriers (LCFRB 2010a). Many barriers have been corrected, 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-3

but a substantial number of barriers remain. Physical and thermal barriers limit 

access to spawning and rearing habitats in some areas. Hatchery structures also 

sometimes act as passage barriers in tributaries (ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010a). (See 

Section 4.3 for information on passage issues at hydropower dams and Section 

4.4.1.3 for more information on hatchery structures.)

• Urban and rural development. Development has diminished overall habitat 

productivity and connectivity and led to the degradation of riparian and floodplain 

conditions and an increase in surface water runoff from cities and towns. The 

drainage network from roads, ditches, and impervious surfaces alters the 

hydrograph and delivers sediment and contaminants to streams, thus reducing 

water quality and affecting the health and fitness of salmonids and other aquatic 

organisms. Loss of riparian vegetation to development has increased stream 

temperatures, and bank hardening and channelization of streams have simplified 

habitat and altered flow. Water withdrawal for municipal uses has contributed to 

altered stream flows and increases in water temperatures. 

• Mining. Sand and gravel mining along some lower Columbia streams has altered 

instream substrate and sediment volumes (ODFW 2010).

Together these factors have reduced the amount and quality of spawning and rearing 

habitats available to Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead, severed access to 

other historically productive habitats, and degraded watershed processes and functions 

that once created healthy ecosystems for salmon and steelhead production. Today, many 

streams have lower pool complexity and frequency compared to historical conditions. 

Channels also lack the complex structure needed to retain gravels for spawning and 

invertebrate production. Also missing from many channels is the connectivity with 

shallow, off-channel habitat and floodplain areas that once provided productive earlyrearing habitat, flood refugia and overwintering habitat, and cover from predators. In 

many areas, contemporary watershed conditions are so different from those under 

which native fish species evolved that they now pose a significant impediment to 

achieving recovery (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). 

Table 4-1 lists common tributary habitat limiting factors that adversely affect 

populations of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead.2 As the table illustrates, 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead commonly are limited by the shape, 

structure, and connectivity of the waterways they use; the amount of water (and thus 

habitat) available to them at different times of year; and the suitability of gravel for 

spawning. The fact that many of the most common limiting factors are related to basic 

ecosystem functions underscores the need for fundamental, widespread improvement in 

watershed processes through much of the lower Columbia Basin. Another message is 

that any actions implemented to address these most common limiting factors have the 

potential to benefit more than one ESU, especially when ESUs have overlapping habitat 

preferences (such as lower elevation off-channel rearing habitat used by both chum and 

 

2 Table 4-1 uses terminology from a “data dictionary” of ecological concerns developed by the NMFS 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center but is based on characterizations of limiting factors and threats in the 

management unit plans, as compiled in the species-specific NMFS limiting factors “crosswalk” tables 

presented in Appendix H (see also Section 5.4 for a description of the data dictionary and crosswalk tables). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-4

fall Chinook salmon). Even so, Table 4-1 does not represent all of the limiting factors that 

affect any particular ESU, or even necessarily the most important limiting factors for a 

particular ESU or population; when implementing recovery actions, it is important to 

consider the specific needs of each ESU or population to ensure that important but less 

common limiting factors are not overlooked (see Chapters 6 through 9).

It also is worth noting that some of the limiting factors in Table 4-1, such as hydrology 

and sediment conditions, or loss of riparian cover, temperature, and sediment supply, 

are interrelated. This raises the possibility of synergistic or compounded effects of 

recovery actions. Future monitoring may clarify the nature of such effects and provide 

opportunities for adaptive management to ensure that such effects are realized.

Table 4-1

Common Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors and Threats 

Limiting Factor Subcategory Associated Threats

Riparian conditions Past/current land use practices

Peripheral and 

transitional habitats

Side channel and wetland 

conditions

Past/current land use practices

Transportation corridor development and 

maintenance

Floodplain condition Past/current land use practices

Transportation corridor development and 

maintenance

Impaired channel 

structure and form

Bed and channel form Past/current land use practices

Transportation corridor development and 

maintenance

Inundation from Bonneville Reservoir

Instream structural complexity Past/current land use practices

Transportation corridor development and

maintenance

Inundation from Bonneville Reservoir

Sediment 

conditions3 Decreased sediment quantity 

(impaired sediment/sand routing 

and gravel recruitment)

Dams 

Increased sediment quantity Past and/or current land use practices 

(e.g., rural roads) 

Transportation corridor development and 

maintenance

Water quality Elevated water temperature Land uses that impair riparian 

function/decrease stream flow

Large dam reservoirs

 3 The limiting factors crosswalk also identified turbidity as a common limiting factor (as a subcategory of the 

water quality limiting factor); however, when NMFS developed the limiting factors crosswalk, it indicated 

turbidity as a limiting factor for every population affected by sediment conditions, because the management 

unit plans did not necessarily distinguish between sediment and turbidity. The crosswalk results for 

turbidity should be validated at some point in the future and are not included in Table 4-1 or the speciesspecific limiting factor summary tables in Chapters 6 through 9 because of this uncertainty. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-5

Limiting Factor Subcategory Associated Threats

Water quantity Altered hydrology

Decreased water 

quantity/downstream flows

Altered flow timing

Low-head hydro diversions

Upslope land uses

Withdrawals for irrigation, hatchery, or 

municipal uses

Hydropower dams

4.1.2 Regional Strategy for Tributary Habitat

To address the limiting factors and threats described above and in Chapters 6 through 9, 

the regional tributary habitat strategy is directed toward protecting and restoring highquality, well-functioning salmon and steelhead habitat through a combination of (1) sitespecific projects that will protect habitat or provide benefits relatively quickly, 

(2) watershed-based actions that will repair habitat-forming processes and provide 

benefits over the long term, and (3) landscape-scale programmatic actions that affect a 

class of activities (such as stormwater management or forest practices) over multiple 

watersheds. Although many habitat-related actions already have been undertaken, 

current activities do not reflect the scale of habitat improvements needed. Recovery of 

the listed species will require concerted efforts to protect remaining areas of favorable 

habitat and restore habitat quality in significant historical production areas. The 

management unit plans place a high value on protecting currently functioning habitat as 

a means of retaining and building out from current production. However, restoration 

also is essential because current habitat in most subbasins is inadequate to support 

viable populations of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead. Federal lands will 

play a significant role in providing and protecting anchor habitats, but substantial 

improvements also are needed in marginal areas of potentially productive habitat 

(LCFRB 2010a). Especially at low elevations, much of the land is in private ownership, 

where restoration activities are likely to be challenging and expensive. 

Representative actions to address the most common limiting factors affecting Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead are shown in Table 4-2.

There is an immediate need to develop prioritization frameworks and get additional 

targeted, site-specific protection and restoration actions, as well as programmatic 

approaches, on the ground as soon as possible, especially because the benefits of some 

habitat actions will take years to accrue. Some prioritization work has already occurred. 

The Washington management unit plan, for instance, has prioritized tributary actions by 

stream reach based on the needs of all populations in a particular watershed (LCFRB 

2010a). The Oregon management unit plan has done some prioritization based on where 

an action will have the greatest beneficial effect and where implementation is most 

feasible (ODFW 2010), but in many Oregon watersheds additional assessment is needed 

to determine protection and restoration priorities at a meaningful spatial scale (ODFW 

2010). The White Salmon management unit plan also identifies areas that are a high 

priority for habitat actions but points to the need for additional information to identify 

and prioritize specific habitat actions (NMFS 2013). For example, now that Condit Dam 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-6

has been removed, 4 habitat conditions downstream of the dam site, and in the area 

previously occupied by Northwestern Lake, will need to be assessed and priority 

restoration actions identified (NMFS 2013). In addition, site-specific protection and 

restoration actions need to be prioritized at the subdomain scale, funding sources need 

to be coordinated, and benchmarks established by which to assess progress in 

implementation and evaluate biological benefits. In these efforts, opportunities to 

consider ecosystem function and benefits need to be balanced with individual species’ 

needs. 

Table 4-2

Representative Actions to Address Limiting Factors Affecting Most Populations

Limiting Factor Subcategory Representative Actions

Impaired channel 

structure and form

Bed and channel form Restore degraded off-channel habitats

Streamline delivery of large wood to restoration sites

Restore degraded riparian areas through planting or 

fencing

Instream structural complexity Restore riparian areas to improve water quality, 

provide long-term supply of large wood to streams, 

and reduce impacts that alter other natural 

processes

Sediment 

conditions and 

water quality5

Decreased sediment quantity 

(impaired sediment/sand routing 

and gravel recruitment)

Place gravel for spawning (below dams)

Remove Little Sandy River diversion (completed) 

Increased sediment quantity 

(turbidity from excessive fine 

sediment)

Conduct sediment source analyses and reduce inputs

Develop/implement stormwater management plans 

for urban areas and roads

Identify and rectify problem legacy roads

Water quantity Altered hydrology

Decreased water 

quantity/downstream flows

Altered flow timing

Protect intact riparian areas via easements and 

acquisition

Explore cooperative water conservation measures

Restore connectivity to small tributaries

Restore degraded off-channel and riparian habitat 

Establish minimum ecosystem-based instream flows

Identify and halt illegal water withdrawals

Watershed-based actions of particular importance will include efforts to restore 

hydrologic, riparian, and sediment processes. Accordingly, the management unit plans 

identify systemic actions related to land use planning and management. In the 

Washington plan, such actions include managing forest lands to protect and restore 

watershed processes, managing growth and development to protect watershed 

processes and habitat conditions, and protecting and restoring stream corridor structure 

and function, hillslope processes, floodplain function, and channel migration (LCFRB 

 4 Condit Dam was breached in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012.

5 The data dictionary and limiting factors crosswalk consider turbidity as a subcategory of the water quality 

limiting factor and thus separately from sediment conditions, but the two limiting factors are presented 

together in this table because their mechanisms, causes, and effects in the lower Columbia River basin are so 

similar. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-7

2010a). The Oregon plan includes actions to (1) develop land management scenarios that 

address hydrograph changes resulting from altered runoff and climate change, 

(2) protect and restore riparian areas to provide long-term supplies of large wood to 

streams, (3) develop stormwater management plans, (4) conduct sediment source 

analyses and implement needed actions, (5) ensure that future development impacts in 

the 100-year floodplain are either low-impact or are mitigated, and (6) prohibit 

development of new dikes, levees, and floodwalls in the 100-year floodplain unless they 

will not increase flood volume, size, and/or intensity (ODFW 2010). 

Managing the impacts of growth and development on watershed processes and habitat 

conditions will be key to protecting and improving habitat conditions for Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead. Accordingly, the recovery strategy proposes 

actions such as managing urban stormwater and agricultural runoff to reduce 

contaminants in streams (LCFRB 2010a), limiting water withdrawals to maintain 

instream flows (LCFRB 2010a) and temperatures, and using land use planning to 

encourage low-impact development and to direct future development away from 

ecologically sensitive areas (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010 ). 

Subbasins vary in the role they will play in recovery, with some subbasins targeted to 

support several primary populations from different ESUs,6 some that will not support 

any primary populations,7 and some targeted to support a mix of primary and 

contributing populations. Table 4-3 shows subbasins targeted in the management unit 

plans to support three or more primary populations. Together, these are the subbasins 

used by most of the core and genetic legacy populations from the Lower Columbia River 

ESUs. These subbasins will play a key role in the recovery of multiple species and 

populations and are where much of the improvements in population status will take 

place, across ESUs. 

 6 As described in Section 3.1.3, primary populations are those targeted for high or very high probability of 

persistence, based on their historical productivity, their genetic contribution to the ESU, the geographical 

distribution of primary populations within the ESU (to reduce catastrophic risk), and the feasibility of 

improving a given population’s status.

7 Subbasins that the management unit plans designate as having no primary populations under the recovery 

scenario are the Youngs Bay, Big Creek, Tilton, and Salmon Creek. Because the Youngs Bay and Big Creek 

subbasins are terminal fishing areas, the impact of hatchery production and harvest on natural-origin fish in 

these subbasins is expected to remain high. The Tilton subbasin has passage barriers to its upper reaches, 

along with habitat degradation in its lower reaches. Habitat degradation also is an issue in the heavily 

urbanized Salmon Creek subbasin, where urban and rural development pressures are increasing. In the 

White Salmon subbasin, recovery prospects are highly uncertain and recovery is expected to take 

considerable time as habitat recovers from the impacts of Condit Dam, which was breached in October 2011 

and completely removed in September 2012. Uncertainties include the habitat response to dam breaching 

and removal and the success of recolonization or reintroduction efforts. In addition, the Lower Cowlitz 

subbasin has only one primary population—coho salmon—because of passage barriers to upper reaches, the 

largely non-forested state of the lower reaches, and growing cities and towns; however, some habitat in the 

Lower Cowlitz subbasin will support primary populations outmigrating from upstream subbasins (i.e., the 

Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Toutle, and Coweeman). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-8

Table 4-3

Subbasins Targeted to Support Three or More Primary Populations

Ecozone Subbasin Primary Populations

Coast Elochoman Fall Chinook, chum, coho

Clatskanie Fall Chinook, chum, coho

Scappoose Fall Chinook, chum, coho

Cascade Coweeman Fall Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

SF Toutle Fall Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

NF Toutle Fall Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

Cispus Spring Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

Upper Cowlitz Spring Chinook, winter steelhead, coho

NF Lewis Fall Chinook, late-fall Chinook, spring Chinook, chum

EF Lewis Fall Chinook, chum, winter steelhead, summer steelhead, coho

Washougal Fall Chinook, chum, summer steelhead

Sandy Late-fall Chinook, spring Chinook, chum, winter steelhead, coho

Gorge Lower Gorge tribs Chum, winter steelhead, coho

Hood Fall Chinook, spring Chinook, winter steelhead, 

summer steelhead, coho

NMFS encourages implementers of this recovery plan to carry out tributary habitat 

protection and restoration actions specified in the Oregon, Washington, and White 

Salmon management unit plans in a manner that addresses limiting factors at the 

population scale. NMFS also encourages relevant entities to revise or add regulatory 

and/or incentive programs where monitoring indicates that habitat function and 

conditions are not improving. Particularly relevant are programs that address activities 

in floodplains and riparian areas and that affect sedimentation and other watershed 

processes. 

NMFS welcomes opportunities to work with implementers to pursue ESA regulatory 

assurances to ensure that programs meet the conservation needs of salmon and 

steelhead. Among non-federal programs, for example, NMFS has determined that 

Washington’s habitat conservation plans for state-owned forest land and its Forest 

Practices Rules for private forest land meet conservation needs for salmon and 

steelhead. (There are two distinct habitat conservation plans in Washington: one 

covering state lands in Washington state [west of the Cascades crest], and a second 

applied to forest practices on private and industrial forestlands statewide.) NMFS’ view 

is that some state land management and regulatory programs (e.g., state forest 

management and forest practice rules in Oregon and regulation of certain agricultural 

practices in Oregon and Washington) do not provide adequate certainty that they will 

protect and restore salmon and steelhead habitat in a manner sufficient to recover the 

subject ESA-listed species. Where population-level habitat monitoring indicates 

statistically significant trends in degradation of key habitat features, the Oregon 

management unit plan calls for encouraging new or revised regulatory measures to 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-9

eliminate further degradation of key habitat features, protect existing high-quality areas, 

and allow long-term passive restoration (ODFW 2010); the management unit plan does 

not identify a specific implementing entity for this action. NMFS considers this action a 

high priority and intends to work with ODFW and other appropriate agencies on its 

implementation.

Among federal programs, since 1994, for example, land management by the U.S. Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management in western Oregon has been guided by the 

Northwest Forest Plan (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior

1994). The aquatic conservation strategy in this plan includes elements such as 

designated riparian management zones, activity-specific management standards, 

watershed assessment, watershed restoration, and identification of key watersheds 

(USDA and USDI, 1994). The Northwest Forest Plan has large riparian management 

zones and relatively protective, activity-specific management standards (USDA and 

USDI, 1994). NMFS considers the Northwest Forest Plan, when fully implemented, 

sufficient to provide for the habitat needs of Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead and Columbia River chum on federal lands. (Although maintaining highquality habitat on federal lands is necessary for the recovery of these species, recovery is 

unlikely unless habitat also can be improved in streams with high potential on nonfederal lands.)

Many other federal programs are also important to protection and restoration of salmon 

and steelhead habitat. In addition to working with agencies to fulfill their ESA section

7(a)(2) responsibilities, NMFS welcomes opportunities to work with federal agencies to 

develop ESA section 7(a)(1) conservation programs that provide a more localized 

approach to priority threats and limiting factors. 

For information on stratum-level tributary habitat strategies, see Sections 6.6.2, 7.4.3.2, 

7.5.3.2, 7.6.3.1, 8.6.2, and 9.6.1.

4.2 Estuary Habitat

Habitat conditions in the Columbia River estuary and plume are important to the 

survival of all Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead during critical rearing, migration, 

and saltwater acclimation periods in their life cycle. For purposes of this recovery plan, 

the Columbia River estuary is defined as extending from the mouth of the Columbia 

River 146 miles upstream to Bonneville Dam and includes the Willamette River below 

Willamette Falls and the tidally influenced portions of other tributaries below Bonneville 

Dam. The Columbia River plume is generally defined by a reduced-salinity contour near 

the ocean surface off the immediate coasts of both Oregon and Washington and 

extending outward to the continental shelf. 

The estuary and plume provide salmon and steelhead with a food-rich environment 

where they undergo the physiological changes needed to make the transition to and 

from saltwater and achieve the growth needed to bolster their marine survival (NMFS 

2011a, LCFRB 2010a). Areas of adjacent habitat types distributed across the estuarine 

salinity gradient may be necessary to support annual migrations of juvenile salmonids 

(Bottom et al. 2005, cited in LCFRB 2010a). Observations of juveniles moving from lowtide refuge areas in deeper channels to salt marsh habitats at high tide and back again 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-10

(Healey 1982, cited in LCFRB 2010a) reinforce the belief that access to suitable low-tide 

refugia near marsh habitat is an important factor in production and survival of salmonid 

juveniles in the Columbia River estuary. Ocean-type salmonids in particular (i.e., fall 

Chinook and chum salmon) rely on the estuary for rearing opportunities. Ocean types 

typically spend weeks to months in the estuary, making use of shallow, vegetated 

habitats such as marshes and tidal swamps (NMFS 2011a). The plume—a unique lowsalinity, high-productivity environment that extends well into the ocean—appears to 

serve a similar function for stream-type salmonids, offering feeding opportunities for 

coho salmon, spring Chinook salmon, and steelhead and distributing juveniles in the 

coastal environment (NMFS 2011a). These species typically make more use of the plume 

than ocean types do, spend less time in the estuary, and use mostly deeper, mainchannel estuarine habitats rather than shallow vegetated wetlands (NMFS 2011a). 

However, feeding and refuge areas in the estuary may be important even for salmonid 

species that move through the estuary relatively quickly (LCFRB 2010a). 

In addition, the physical refugia and turbidity in the estuary and possibly also the plume 

historically helped protect both ocean- and stream-type juveniles from predators (NMFS 

2011a). 

For more information on the Columbia River estuary, see the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a).8

4.2.1 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors and Threats

Currently a lack of habitat opportunity and reduced habitat quality limit the viability of 

salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River estuary and plume. The amount and 

accessibility of in-channel, off-channel, and plume habitat have been reduced as a result 

of habitat conversion for agricultural, urban, and industrial uses, hydroregulation and 

flood control, channelization, and higher bankfull elevations, which have been 

facilitated by diking, dredging, and filling. Overbank flooding that normally would aid 

juveniles in accessing off-channel refugia and food resources has been virtually 

eliminated, and sediment transport processes that structure habitat (and offer protection 

from predators) have been impaired (NMFS 2011a). Access to up to 77 percent of 

historical tidal swamps and many other peripheral wetlands has been eliminated, and 

the surface area of the estuary has decreased by approximately 20 percent over the past 

200 years (Fresh et al. 2005). Similarly, over roughly the last century the annual mean 

river flow through the estuary has declined by about 16 percent and peak spring flows 

have declined about 44 percent (Jay and Naik 2002 as cited in NMFS 2011a). 

 8 The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) synthesizes 

recently available information on the Columbia River estuary and plume to identify and analyze (1) limiting 

factors and threats in the estuary and plume that affect the viability of salmon and steelhead populations, 

(2) management actions whose implementation would reduce the threats and thus increase survival of 

salmon and steelhead during their time in the estuary, (3) the estimated cost of implementing each action 

over a 25-year period, and (4) monitoring, research, and evaluation needs related to the estuary and plume. 

Key source documents for the estuary module included two NMFS technical memoranda (Bottom et al. 2005 

and Fresh et al 2005) and the subbasin plan for the lower Columbia River estuary and mainstem (Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council 2004a). Information from these sources was supplemented by input from 

NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Northwest Regional Office, the Lower Columbia Estuary

Partnership, and the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. For more on the estuary module, see Section 

1.5.3.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-11

Some reductions in Columbia River flow are attributable to water withdrawals for 

irrigation and commercial, industrial, municipal, domestic, and other human uses. 

Irrigation needs account for approximately 96 percent of surface water withdrawals and 

75 percent of groundwater withdrawals (National Research Council 2004). In total, water 

withdrawals have reduced flows of the Columbia River by 7 percent since the latter part 

of the nineteenth century (Jay and Kukulka 2003). 

Meanwhile, the quality of the habitat available to salmon and steelhead in the estuary 

has been compromised. Water temperatures above the upper thermal tolerance range 

for salmon and steelhead are occurring earlier and more often (NMFS 2011a) and are 

likely to continue to climb as a result of global climate change (Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board 2007a, as cited in NMFS 2011a). A variety of toxic contaminants have 

been found in water, sediments, and salmon tissue in the estuary at concentrations 

above the estimated thresholds for health effects in juvenile salmon. These contaminants 

include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

DDT, and copper (Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 2007). Pesticides in 

current use also have been detected in the estuary, along with emerging contaminants 

such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and brominated fire retardants (Lower 

Columbia River Estuary Partnership 2007). Although the effects of emerging 

contaminants on salmon and steelhead are not well understood, these compounds 

appear to pose risks to salmonid development, health, and fitness through endocrine 

disruption, bioaccumulative toxicity, or other means. Toxic contaminants are 

widespread in the estuary, both geographically and in the food chain (Lower Columbia

River Estuary Partnership 2007). 

Construction of revetments, disposal of dredged material, removal of large wood, and 

reductions in flow in the estuary have altered the diet of juvenile salmon in the estuary 

by eliminating much of the vegetated wetlands that historically supplied insect prey for 

juvenile salmonids and macrodetrital inputs to the estuarine food web. The shift in diet 

has been compounded by increased microdetrital inputs to the estuary; microdetrital 

inputs originate in decaying phytoplankton delivered from upstream reservoirs and 

nutrient inputs from urban, industrial, and agricultural development. The microdetritalbased food web may be less efficient for salmon and steelhead and favor other fish 

species in the estuary, such as American shad. It is likely that estuarine food web 

dynamics are being furthered altered by the presence of native and exotic fish, 

introduced invertebrates, invasive plant species, and thousands of over-water and 

instream structures, which alter habitat in their immediate vicinity. These and other 

changes in habitat have left the estuary and plume in a degraded state compared to 

historical conditions (NMFS 2011a). 

In addition, current habitat conditions in the estuary and plume support increased 

predation on salmonids by northern pikeminnow, pinnipeds, Caspian terns, and 

cormorants, and juvenile salmon and steelhead in the estuary are subject to mechanical 

hazards from dredging activities, ship ballast intake, and beach stranding as a result of 

ship wakes (NMFS 2011a). 

The degraded habitat conditions in the estuary and plume affect the abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead and 

have led to estuarine habitat issues being identified in the Oregon and Washington 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-12

management unit plans as one of six general categories of threats that limit the viability 

of Lower Columbia River Chinook, coho, and steelhead and Columbia River chum 

salmon. Both management unit plans cite water quantity and flow timing, impaired 

sediment and sand routing, altered channel structure, and loss or degradation of 

peripheral and transitional habitats in the Columbia River estuary and plume as 

primary limiting factors that affect all Lower Columbia River Chinook, coho, and 

steelhead and Columbia River chum salmon juveniles. Management unit recovery 

planners estimated baseline anthropogenic mortality in the estuary and plume—

excluding mortality attributable to predation—at between 9 and 50 percent, depending 

on species and population; for most populations, the estimates range from 10 to 

32 percent (see ODFW pp. 169-200 and LCFRB 2010a pp. 6-17, 6-38, 6-50, and 6-66). 

These estimates were based in part on mortality estimates in the estuary module (NMFS 

2011a). 

Additional information about limiting factors, threats, and mortality in the Columbia 

River estuary and plume is available in Chapters 3 and 4 of the estuary module (NMFS 

2011a), ODFW (2010) pp. 88-90, and LCRFB (2010a) pp. 3-33 through 3-47.

4.2.2 Regional Strategy for Estuary Habitat

Actions and strategies presented in the Oregon and Washington management unit plans 

to reduce estuarine habitat-related threats are consistent with those in the Columbia River 

Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a), which 

describes and analyzes actions to benefit all Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead 

species, including the Lower Columbia River ESUs. In general, estuary habitat strategies 

focus on providing adequate off-channel and intertidal habitats, such as tidal swamp 

and marsh; restoring habitat complexity in areas modified by agricultural or rural 

residential use; decreasing exposure to toxic contaminants; and lowering late summer 

and fall water temperatures. This will be accomplished over the long term by restoring 

hydrologic, sediment, and riparian processes that structure habitat in the estuary. 

Representative actions include protecting and restoring high-quality off-channel habitats 

and riparian areas; identifying and reducing current sources of pollutants; restoring 

contaminated sites; adjusting the timing, magnitude, and frequency of flows9; and 

breaching and lowering dikes and levees. Together, these actions are expected to 

increase the complexity and accessibility of estuarine habitat and improve water quality 

and flow patterns in the estuary and, potentially, the plume. A host of additional 

actions, such as preventing new introductions of invasive species, also are expected to 

improve habitat conditions in the estuary, to a lesser degree.

Because the mechanisms of estuary habitat impacts and the techniques for reducing 

them are poorly understood, estuary habitat actions will need to be implemented under 

an adaptive management framework. Both the estuary module and the management 

unit plans identify research needs to reduce critical uncertainties and increase the 

effectiveness of actions (see Table 5-6 of NMFS 2011a, pp. 233-238 of ODFW 2010, and p. 

9-72 of LCFRB 2010a).

 9 Adjusting timing, magnitude, and frequency of flows would be limited by international treaties, the need 

for flood control, fish management objectives, and power production. However, even slight modifications in 

the flow regime have the potential to provide significant ecosystem benefits. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-13

An aggressive, strategic approach needs to be developed for implementation of actions 

in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a). The estuary module refrains from explicitly prioritizing habitat actions because it 

considers all of the management actions it identifies as necessary in improving the 

survival of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River estuary and plume. But the 

module does identify priority reaches for each action and offers several analyses 

intended to inform future decisions about prioritization (i.e., actions likely to be most 

beneficial to stream-type salmonids, those that will benefit ocean types, and those that 

are most cost-effective; see Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-5 of NMFS 2011a). These analyses take 

into account the probable implementation constraints for each action (see Table 5-6 of 

NMFS 2011a). In addition, the module identifies a need to determine near-term 

implementation priorities by developing a 5-year implementation plan that provides 

specificity and certainty regarding near-term actions. For many actions, additional 

assessment is needed to determine implementation priorities and specific benefits to 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead. 

Developing implementation priorities for estuarine habitat actions should include 

establishment of milestones or expected trends in improved habitat condition in highpriority intertidal areas, which are particularly important for ocean-type salmon (i.e., fall 

Chinook and chum salmon). Less is known about the habitat needs of chum salmon than 

those of other ESUs addressed in this recovery plan, and the management unit plans call 

for habitat assessments to learn more on this subject. Yet what is known points to 

overlapping habitat needs with fall Chinook salmon, especially for rearing habitat. A 

topic to be investigated is whether Coast- and Cascade-stratum chum salmon 

populations, like fall Chinook salmon, make heavy use of the tidal portions of tributaries 

at their confluence with the mainstem Columbia. The Washington management unit 

plan notes that lower tidal reaches of streams were not typically assigned a high priority 

for habitat actions in the EDT-based watershed assessments, but these areas have been 

identified as critical rearing areas for both fall Chinook and chum salmon (LCFRB 

2010a). 

4.3 Hydropower

The Columbia Basin has more than 450 dams, which are managed for hydropower, 

flood control, and other uses. Together these dams provide active storage of 42 million 

acre-feet of water, with dams in Canada accounting for about half of the total storage 

(Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2001, as cited in NMFS 2011a). Within the 

United States, 14 multi-purpose hydropower projects operate as a coordinated system in 

the Columbia Basin. Bonneville Dam is the only mainstem hydropower facility within 

the geographic range of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead, but flow 

management operations at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the Columbia Basin 

(Grand Coulee, Dworshak, etc.) affect habitat in the lower Columbia River mainstem 

and estuary, and, potentially, the plume. In addition, significant tributary hydropower 

dams are located on the Cowlitz and Lewis rivers in Washington and the Willamette, 

Clackamas, and Sandy rivers in Oregon. Condit Dam, on the White Salmon River, was 

breached in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012.10 The impacts of 

hydropower facility construction and operation on Lower Columbia salmon and 

 10 Powerdale Dam, on the Hood River, was removed in 2010. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-14

steelhead occur both locally (at, above, and immediately below dams) and downstream, 

in the Columbia River estuary and, potentially, the plume.

4.3.1 Hydropower Limiting Factors and Threats

Hydropower limiting factors and threats can be categorized as those related to 

reservoirs and structures (including passage and habitat access impacts) and those 

related to flow modifications. These are described briefly below. 

4.3.1.1 Reservoir-Related or Structural Impacts

Dam construction on the lower Columbia River and its tributaries has caused habitat 

loss by converting riverine habitat to large impoundments of slow-moving water and 

flooding upriver deltas, wetlands, and floodplains (ODFW 2010).

The impoundment of water in large storage reservoirs in the interior Columbia Basin 

and operations at mainstem hydropower projects in the lower Columbia Basin has 

contributed to increased water temperatures during the late summer and fall in the 

Columbia River, including the lower Columbia River mainstem and estuary. Even when 

elevated temperatures do not cause direct mortality, they can cause adverse 

physiological and behavioral effects and may enhance conditions for warm-water fish 

that prey on juvenile salmonids (NMFS 2011a).

Impoundments also alter food webs and enhance opportunities for some predators. In 

Bonneville Reservoir and just downstream of Bonneville Dam, a variety of fish species—

northern pikeminnow, walleye, smallmouth bass, and salmonids—prey on juvenile 

salmon and steelhead. In addition, adult spring Chinook salmon and steelhead 

attempting to pass above Bonneville Dam are subject to predation by seals and sea lions 

that congregate at the dam (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2011a). For more on 

predation, see Section 4.6.1.1.

In addition, water can become supersaturated with atmospheric gases (primarily 

nitrogen) when spilled over high dams. These high concentrations of gases are absorbed 

into a fish’s bloodstream during respiration. When the gas comes out of solution, 

bubbles may form and subject the fish to gas bubble disease, which can cause direct 

mortality or increase susceptibility to disease or predation (LCFRB 2010a). Dam 

operations have been modified to reduce what once were high dissolved gas levels, but 

some salmonid mortality continues to be associated with exceptionally high river flows 

(NMFS 2000a). 

Impaired Fish Passage in the Columbia River Mainstem

Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River mainstem acts as a partial migration barrier to 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations that originate above the 

dam—specifically, Upper Gorge, Hood River, and White Salmon populations. Both 

downstream-migrating juveniles and upstream-migrating adults experience delay, 

injury, and mortality while trying to pass the dam. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-15

Although fish ladders provide for upstream passage of adult salmon and steelhead, 

historically—and during the baseline period for this recovery plan—they have not been 

completely effective (LCFRB 2010a). More recently in the lower Columbia River 

mainstem, average survival rates of adults at Bonneville Dam have been estimated at 

approximately 99 percent for spring Chinook salmon and steelhead and 97 percent for 

fall Chinook, coho, and chum salmon (NMFS 2008a). 

Downstream fish passage at Bonneville Dam is complex, with two passage routes at 

each of two powerhouses, plus an unattached spillway. Outmigrating juveniles 

experience different mortality rates depending on whether passage occurs via turbines, 

spill, or a fish bypass system. NMFS estimates that recent average survival of juveniles 

from Lower Columbia River ESUs at Bonneville Dam is between 90 and 95 percent, 

depending on species (NMFS 2008a). 

Impaired Fish Passage in Tributaries

Tributary dams create fish passage barriers that limit habitat connectivity and access to 

spawning and rearing habitats for some Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead. 

As with Bonneville Dam, tributary dams can cause mortality of out-migrating juveniles, 

delay migration of returning adult salmon and steelhead, and hinder or totally block 

access to historical spawning areas above the dam. Within the lower Columbia recovery 

planning subdomain, major hydropower systems on the Cowlitz and Lewis rivers in 

Washington are responsible for the greatest share of blocked habitat access. Tributary 

dams also restrict fish passage in the Clackamas, Sandy, and White Salmon 

watersheds.11 (Although dams are responsible for the greatest share of blocked habitat, 

inadequate culverts make up the vast majority of all barriers [LCFRB 2010a]; see Section 

4.1.1.) 

4.3.1.2 Flow-Related Impacts 

Before development of the hydropower system, Columbia River flows were 

characterized by high spring runoff from snowmelt and regular winter and spring 

floods. Today, the interception and retention of spring freshets in multiple dams and 

their use for irrigation, reservoir storage, and other purposes cause flow volumes to the 

Columbia River estuary to be more uniform throughout the year than they were 

historically (see Figure 4-1). Over the last century, annual mean flow in the Columbia 

River estuary has declined, the volume of the spring freshet has dropped by 44 percent, 

and the timing of the freshet has shifted to 14 to 30 days earlier in the year (Jay and 

Kukulka 2003). Although changes in flow entering the estuary are due to a combination 

of factors, including water withdrawals and the effects of climate change, the 

management unit plans and Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) identify mainstem dams as the primary contributor to flow 

alterations in the estuary. 

 11 Powerdale Dam, on the Hood River, was removed in 2010. Condit Dam, on the White Salmon River, was 

breached in October 2011 and completely removed in 2012. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-16

Figure 4-1. Changes in Annual Columbia River Flow

(Measured at Beaver Army Terminal, near Quincy, Oregon. Source: Bottom et al. 2005).

Flow alterations have disrupted habitat-forming processes such as the recruitment of 

large woody debris and sediment delivery to the Columbia River estuary. Historically, 

sediment was delivered to the estuary largely via spring freshets. That vehicle for 

sediment delivery has been curtailed, and today reservoirs commonly act to trap 

upstream supplies of fine sediments (NMFS 2011a). Since the late nineteenth century, 

sediment transport from the interior of the Columbia Basin to the Columbia River 

estuary has decreased approximately 60 percent (Jay and Kukulka 2003). This has 

altered deposition and erosion processes that shape estuarine habitat for salmonids.

Together with diking and the placement of dredged materials on or near the shore, flow 

alterations have also virtually eliminated the overbank flooding that once allowed 

juvenile salmonids to access large areas of off-channel habitat for refuge and rearing. 

Without periodic inundation—tidal, seasonal, or annual—much habitat that formerly 

was used by juvenile salmonids has disappeared or been transformed into different 

habitat types (NMFS 2011a). 

By reducing wetland and foraging habitat, simplifying habitats, and altering sediment 

inputs, flow alterations have contributed to changes in the estuarine food web, 

particularly in detrital food sources. The current food web is based on decaying 

phytoplankton delivered from upstream reservoirs, instead of macrodetrital inputs from 

plants and animals originating from emergent forest and other wetland rearing areas in 

the estuary, as was the case historically. The switch from macrodetrital- to microdetritalbased food sources has lowered the productivity of the estuary (Bottom et al. 2005), 

provided different and possibly less favorable food sources to juvenile salmonids, and 

concentrated food sources within the estuarine turbidity maximum, in the middle region 

of the estuary (Bottom et al. 2005). This location is less accessible to ocean-type salmon, 

such as chum, that use peripheral habitats (LCFRB 2010a). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-17

Both juvenile and adult migration behavior and travel rates are influenced by the 

changes in river flow. Artificial regulation of flow can stimulate or delay juvenile 

emigration or adult migration, thereby affecting the timing of juvenile arrival in the 

estuary and ocean (ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010a) or adult arrival at spawning areas 

(LCFRB 2010a). 

Rapid diurnal flow fluctuations can cause unintended and adverse redistribution of 

mainstem spawners, leave redds dewatered, or strand juveniles (LCFRB 2010a). 

Although daily flow fluctuations as a result of power production occurred in the past 

and resulted in dewatering of chum redds, a minimum flow now applies from 

November through April to reduce the potential for such dewatering. 

4.3.2 Regional Hydropower Strategy

The regional hydropower strategy focuses on hydropower operations on the Columbia 

River mainstem and has three principal components: (1) improving passage survival at 

Bonneville Dam for Lower Columbia River populations that spawn above the dam, 

(2) addressing impacts in tributaries by implementing actions prescribed in Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission agreements regarding operation of individual tributary 

dams, and (3) implementing mainstem flow management operations designed to benefit 

spring migrants from the interior of the Columbia Basin; NMFS expects that these flow 

management operations will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the 

plume for all Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. Actions

identified in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 2008f 

and 2010a) will aid adults and juveniles from the Gorge populations in passing 

Bonneville Dam. Specific actions include structural improvements, changes in 

configuration and operations, and development and implementation of year-round fish 

passage plans for Bonneville Dam.12 NMFS’ estimates of recent survival of lower 

Columbia River species are shown in Table 4-4. NMFS expected that implementation of 

actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion would improve juvenile salmon and 

steelhead survival at Bonneville Dam by less than 1⁄2 percent, and that the recent high 

level of adult survival would be maintained at the levels shown in Table 4-4 (NMFS 

2008a and 2010a). Consequently, Oregon did not incorporate survival benefits from 

passage improvements at Bonneville into the hydropower threat reduction targets for 

Oregon populations above Bonneville.13 The Washington management unit plan 

assumed that actions identified in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement would aid adults and juveniles from all populations originating above 

Bonneville Dam. However, preliminary information indicates that survival gains for 

yearling Chinook and steelhead at Bonneville Dam are higher than expected, and that 

juvenile passage survivals are above 96 percent in both cases (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 2011b). 

In addition, for chum salmon, the regional hydropower strategy will focus on ensuring 

adequate flows in the Bonneville Dam tailrace and downstream habitats during chum 

salmon migration, spawning, incubation, and emergence. FCRPS Biological Opinion 

 12 For more specificity, see the actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternative (NMFS 2008f).

13 Hydropower-related threat reductions for Oregon populations above Bonneville Dam are associated with 

removal of Powerdale Dam on the Hood River.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-18

actions will protect chum salmon spawning areas in the mainstem Columbia River in the 

area of the Ives Island complex and/or will provide access to Hamilton and Hardy 

creeks. These areas currently constitute significant spawning areas for the Lower Gorge 

population. 

Table 4-4

Estimated Average Survival Rates of Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Passing 

Bonneville Dam

Average Survival Rate (%)

Juveniles

2002 – 2009

Adults

2002 – 2007

Coho salmon 95.1 96.9

Spring Chinook salmon 95.1 98.6

Fall Chinook salmon 95.1 96.9

Chum salmon 95.1 96.9

Steelhead 90.6 98.5

Source: NMFS (2008a) and (2010a).

In its management unit plan, Oregon incorporated four actions addressing impacts of 

the Columbia River hydropower system that are not included in the 2008 FCRPS 

Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 2008f and 2010a) but that Oregon 

maintains are needed to benefit Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead:

• Action 1: Operate lower Columbia reservoirs at minimum operating pool during 

spring and summer as long as barge transport and irrigation needs are met.

• Action 2: Provide spill to total dissolved gas limits of water quality waivers or 

biological constraints at all dams, except maximize transportation at Snake River 

collector projects during lower (10th percentile) flow years.

• Action 3: Draft storage reservoirs to meet Lower Columbia summer flow and 

velocity equivalent objectives on a seasonal and weekly basis.

• Action 4: Operate reservoirs at rule curves and seek additional flow augmentation 

volumes from Snake River and Canadian reservoirs to better meet spring and 

summer flow and velocity objectives. 

The state of Oregon’s position is that the FCRPS action agencies should conduct 

operations in addition to those incorporated in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and 

its 2010 Supplement to address the needs of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Oregon is 

a plaintiff in litigation against various federal agencies, including NMFS, challenging the 

adequacy of measures in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. 

NMFS does not agree with Oregon regarding the need for or likely efficacy of the 

additional actions that Oregon proposed in that litigation, including the items noted 

above; thus NMFS is not adopting as part of this recovery plan the additional actions 

proposed by Oregon.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-19

In the Columbia River estuary, under the terms of the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion 

and its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 2008f and 2010a), the action agencies will implement an 

expanded estuary habitat program to address limiting factors that affect juvenile 

salmonids rearing in the estuary. These estuary habitat projects will increase the amount 

of juvenile salmonid shallow-water habitat and benefit all ESA-listed ESUs. The 2008 

FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement incorporate a relative survival 

improvement estimate of 9.0 percent for ocean-type ESUs (including Lower Columbia 

River fall Chinook and Columbia River chum salmon) to be derived from habitat 

improvements, and an estimate of 5.7 percent for stream-type ESUs (including Lower 

Columbia River coho salmon, spring Chinook salmon, and steelhead). In addition, the 

Biological Opinion projects that actions to reduce predation in the estuary will increase 

survival by additional amounts, as shown in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5

Projected Survival Improvements for Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead from 

Actions to Reduce Predation in the Estuary

Survival Improvement (%)

Coho salmon 8.8

Spring Chinook salmon 3.1

Fall Chinook salmon 1.7

Chum salmon 1.0

Steelhead 4.4

Source: NMFS (2008f and 2010a).

As noted in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead

(NMFS 2011a), actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement 

that relate to estuarine habitat, predation, and flow are contributing to implementation 

of actions called for in the module; however, these Biological Opinion actions are 

projected to yield only a portion of the total survival improvements that the estuary 

module hypothesizes are possible in those categories. Thus, the module identifies 

habitat, predation, and flow actions that are larger in scope than the actions that are 

required under the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement.

For information on stratum-level hydropower strategies, see Sections 6.6.4, 7.4.3.4, 

7.5.3.4, 7.6.3.2, 8.6.4, and 9.6.3.

4.4 Hatcheries

For more than a century, fish managers have used hatcheries in the Lower Columbia 

River to produce fish for harvest. Although some early hatchery programs 

supplemented already large naturally spawning populations, most were developed to 

compensate for declining numbers of naturally spawned salmon and steelhead, which 

were experiencing the detrimental effects of habitat loss (particularly related to 

hydropower dams) (LCFRB 2010a). Today, salmon and steelhead production in the 

lower Columbia region is dominated by hatchery-origin fish (ODFW 2010, LCFRB 

2010a).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-20

Although the actual number of artificial production programs changes annually based 

on funding and broodstock availability, in 2011 there were more than 80 separate 

artificial production programs in the lower Columbia region. Almost all of these 

programs produce fish for harvest; a few produce fish for reintroduction purposes or to 

supplement severely depressed natural populations. Most Lower Columbia programs 

produce either coho or Chinook salmon, while a smaller number produce steelhead, and 

four programs produce chum salmon (Turner, personal communication 2011).14

As shown in Table 4-6, artificial production programs release millions of fall Chinook 

salmon, spring Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, and steelhead into lower 

Columbia River subbasins each year, although Lower Columbia production has been 

reduced substantially over the past 15 years. In addition to these releases, hatchery fish 

released elsewhere in the Columbia Basin migrate through the lower Columbia River as 

juveniles and adults. 

Table 4-6

Hatchery Releases of Salmon and Steelhead in the Lower Columbia River, 2011 

LCR Release By ODFW By WDFW By USFWS Total

Fall Chinook* 11,991,500 14,800,000 17,034,500 43,826,000

Spring Chinook** 1,225,000 2,940,400 1,714,000 5,879,400

Coho 5,404,000 6,689,000 643,900 12,746,900

Summer Steelhead 255,000 1,066,100 0 1,321,100

Winter Steelhead 510,000 1,234,300 111,500 1,855,800

Chum 0 307,000 0 307,000

All releases 65,936,200

* Fall Chinook includes tules, upriver brights, and Select Area brights.

**Excludes Clackamas hatchery spring Chinook salmon, which are in the Upper Willamette spring Chinook 

ESU.

Source: Turner, personal communication (2011).

Annual returns of adult hatchery-origin fish are large relative to returns of adult fish 

produced naturally in the Columbia Basin. For example, from 2000 to 2010, the number 

of adult Lower Columbia River hatchery-origin fall Chinook salmon returning annually 

to the Columbia River ranged from 27,000 to 156,400, while natural-origin Lower 

Columbia River fall Chinook salmon returns numbered between 4,300 and 26,000 fish 

(Joint Columbia River Management Staff 2011). From 2000 to 2008, annual coho salmon 

returns ranged from 318,600 to more than 1.1 million, with almost all being hatcheryorigin fish (NMFS 2008b).15

 14 Only three of these chum salmon hatchery programs are part of the ESU; NMFS has not yet evaluated the 

fourth, which the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated in 2010, for inclusion in the ESU.

15 Over this same time period, the geometric mean number of natural-origin spawners for the two largest 

coho salmon populations totaled less than 3,000 

(http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/trt_documents/lcolumbia_coho.pdf).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-21

At the time many hatchery programs were developed, little was known about the 

impacts of hatchery fish on natural populations. Instead, it was generally believed that 

hatchery fish could be substituted for naturally spawning fish without lasting 

consequences; there was little understanding of the negative impacts hatchery fish could 

have on naturally spawning populations and of the need to protect naturally spawning 

populations and their habitats. 

Today scientists and managers understand that hatchery programs have the potential 

both to benefit and to harm Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead. The weight of 

available scientific evidence indicates that any artificial breeding and rearing will result 

in some degree of genetic change and fitness reduction in hatchery fish, and in the 

progeny of hatchery-origin fish that spawn naturally, relative to desired levels of 

diversity and productivity for natural populations. Hatchery fish thus pose a threat to 

the rebuilding and recovery of natural populations when they interbreed with fish from 

natural populations. That risk is outweighed in certain circumstances, such as when the 

near-term demographic risks of extinction outweigh longer term risks to population 

diversity and productivity. The extent and duration of genetic change and fitness loss 

and the near- and long-term implications and consequences for different species, for 

species with multiple life-history types, and under different hatchery practices and 

protocols remains unclear and should be the subject of further scientific investigation. 

NMFS believes that in certain circumstances, hatchery intervention is an appropriate 

tool to help avert salmon and steelhead extinction in the near term and to accelerate the 

recolonization of habitat. Otherwise, managers should limit interactions between 

hatchery- and natural-origin fish during the transition to hatchery practices consistent 

with recovery of listed populations, treaty fishing rights, and other applicable laws 

and policies. 

4.4.1 Hatchery Limiting Factors and Threats

4.4.1.1 Genetic Effects

Hatchery practices such as broodstock collection and spawning protocols can cause 

genetic changes in hatchery fish. When hatchery-origin fish spawn with natural-origin 

fish, these genetic changes can be transmitted to the naturally produced fish; the larger 

the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners, the larger the genetic effects to the natural 

population. These genetic effects can be summarized as follows (NMFS 2011c): 

• Loss of within-population diversity. Loss of within-population genetic diversity 

is a loss in the amount or type of genetic variability in a population, which can be 

caused by genetic drift and inbreeding depression. Genetic drift typically results 

from using small numbers of broodstock fish, having an unbalanced sex ratio in 

the broodstock, or pooling gametes from many adults during spawning. 

Inbreeding depression is a reduction in fitness caused by mating related 

individuals (Busack and Currens 1995, NMFS 2011c). The smaller the population, 

the higher the probability of inbreeding.

• Outbreeding effects. Outbreeding effects refer to changes in fitness and diversity 

caused by gene flow (i.e., interbreeding) in excess of natural rates among 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-22

genetically distinct populations (NMFS 2011c). One outbreeding effect is loss of 

within-population diversity, which may have no immediate impact on fitness. 

Large-scale loss of diversity is called “genetic swamping” or homogenization. 

The other outbreeding effect is outbreeding depression, in which changes in 

diversity caused by gene flow result in loss of fitness. Decreased disease 

resistance (Currens et al. 1997) and diminished ability to avoid predators 

(Tymchuk et al. 2007) are demonstrated results of outbreeding depression.

• Domestication selection. Domestication selection is intentional or inadvertent 

change to the natural selection regime caused by hatchery culture, resulting in 

the fish being less well adapted in the wild. Traits such as fish size, timing of 

spawning, growth rate, and feeding behaviors are subject to domestication 

selection. Domestication selection can also include the relaxation of selection. For 

example, hatchery fish do not participate in mate-choice behaviors, and the 

ability to perform these behaviors effectively can diminish in hatchery 

populations. When naturally produced fish interbreed with hatchery-origin fish, 

the level of domestication selection that occurs to the total population is a 

function of the fraction of hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds and the 

composition of the hatchery broodstock (NMFS 2011c, Berejikian and Ford 2004). 

High proportions of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds have been common for 

decades in many Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations, including 

the vast majority of Chinook and coho salmon populations. The impacts are likely a mix 

of outbreeding effects and domestication selection. For example, homogenization 

already has occurred in natural-origin coho salmon, which are now genetically 

indistinguishable from hatchery fish (Flagg et al. 1995). Fitness impacts from 

domestication selection are difficult to quantify in the Lower Columbia River, but a 

recent review of the literature worldwide suggests that progeny of hatchery fish that 

spawn in the wild are less likely to survive and return as adults than the progeny of 

natural-origin spawners (Berejikian and Ford 2004). In addition, Chilcote et al. (2011) 

found a negative relationship between the reproductive performance in natural, 

anadromous populations of steelhead, coho salmon, and Chinook salmon and the 

proportion of hatchery fish in the spawning population, including populations in the 

Lower Columbia. 

4.4.1.2 Competition (Density-Dependent Mortality) and Predation

Density dependence refers to changes in the productivity of a population that are a 

result of the size of the population (productivity here refers to the number of returning 

offspring per spawner). In a density-dependent process, the number of offspring 

produced per spawner is higher when there are few spawners but decreases to one 

offspring per spawner (i.e., replacement) when the number of spawners is at the 

habitat’s carrying capacity. With salmon and steelhead, density-dependent mortality can 

occur at any stage in the animal’s life cycle and may be exacerbated by the introduction 

of large numbers of hatchery fish released over a relatively short time (NMFS 2011a). 

Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from Columbia 

Basin hatcheries may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and 

habitat space in the Columbia River estuary. NMFS (2011) and LCFRB (2010a) identified 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-23

competition for food and space among hatchery and natural-origin juveniles in the 

estuary as a critical uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged this uncertainty but listed 

competition for food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all 

populations. The NMFS Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are 

working to better define and describe the scientific uncertainty associated with 

ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon in freshwater, 

estuarine, and nearshore ocean habitats. 

In addition, hatchery fish can sometimes prey directly on naturally produced juveniles, 

particularly chum salmon (ODFW 2010). Chum salmon fry from all populations may 

experience predation by hatchery-origin coho salmon, steelhead, and Chinook salmon 

smolts, although differences in life history patterns may moderate effects and the 

significance of interactions is unknown. 

4.4.1.3 Other Effects: Disease Transmission, Passage Blockages, Water Withdrawals, 

and Mixed Stock Harvest

Hatchery fish can be infected with pathogens or parasites and have the potential to 

spread these organisms to natural-origin fish, although disease transmission from 

hatchery to natural-origin fish does not appear to be widespread in the lower Columbia 

region (LCFRB 2010a). (For more on this topic, see Section 4.6.1.3.) Hatchery structures, 

such as weirs, ladders, and screens, can injure fish and block or delay the passage of 

naturally produced adults and juveniles and thus reduce population spatial structure. 

Water withdrawals for hatchery operations can reduce tributary flow and habitat 

quality. Lastly, when hatchery production stimulates harvest, the incidental mortality of 

naturally produced fish can increase. 

4.4.2 Regional Hatchery Strategy

For most Lower Columbia River ESUs, the general goals of the hatchery strategies 

developed by local recovery planners, and the basic approaches they recommend for 

achieving those goals, are similar. These goals and approaches are summarized below. 

Although these strategies are especially relevant for Lower Columbia River coho, spring 

and fall Chinook salmon, and Lower Columbia River steelhead (which have been subject 

to the most hatchery influence), they also are relevant to Columbia River chum salmon 

and late-fall Chinook salmon to the extent that hatcheries have created or may create 

limiting factors for these fish. Although the overall hatchery strategy will be applied 

consistently throughout the domain, management unit planners have or will establish 

specific targets for reductions in hatchery impacts at the population level and specific 

actions for achieving those targets; consequently, the specifics of how the regional 

hatchery strategy is applied will differ among populations and among 

hatchery programs.

The overall goals of the hatchery recovery strategies for the Lower Columbia ESUs are to 

(1) reduce hatchery impacts on natural-origin populations as appropriate for each 

population, (2) ensure that some populations have no in-subbasin hatchery releases and 

are isolated from stray out-of-subbasin hatchery fish, (3) use hatchery stocks in the short 

term for reintroduction or supplementation programs to restore naturally spawning 

populations in some watersheds, and (4) ensure rigorous monitoring and evaluation to 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-24

better understand existing population status and the effects of hatchery strategies on 

natural populations. The management unit plans include the additional societal goal of 

maintaining harvest opportunities created by hatchery fish. To accomplish these goals, 

hatchery programs will be managed in one of two general ways: as genetically 

integrated with or segregated from the natural populations they most directly influence. 

In integrated programs, the intent is for the natural environment to drive the adaptation 

and fitness of a composite population of fish that spawns both in a hatchery and in the 

wild (i.e., to limit domestication). When hatcheries are used for conservation purposes 

(e.g., increasing the abundance of natural spawners, reintroducing fish into historically 

occupied habitats, or conserving genetic resources), integrated programs are the tool of 

choice because, by design, they allow a certain number of hatchery-origin fish to spawn 

in the wild. Integrated programs are also sometimes used to provide harvest 

opportunities, in which case the intent is to produce a desired set of fishery 

characteristics; however, there is still the need to reduce the effects of hatchery-origin 

fish spawning naturally. Integrated programs promote local adaptation and natural 

productivity through measures such as use of local broodstock, inclusion of naturally 

produced fish in the hatchery broodstock, and limits on the proportion of hatchery fish 

spawning in the wild.

In segregated programs, the intent is to maintain a hatchery population that is 

genetically isolated from and does not interact with the natural population. In contrast 

to integrated programs, segregated programs reduce domestication solely by 

minimizing spawning between natural-origin and hatchery-origin fish. The purpose of 

segregated programs is almost always to provide harvest opportunities. Risks posed to 

the natural population by the hatchery fish are reduced by minimizing interactions 

throughout the fishes’ life cycles, including the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners 

(pHOS) on the spawning grounds. Managers control the proportion of hatchery-origin 

spawners through measures such as reducing overall production, shifting production to 

reduce straying into certain watersheds, changing production strategies to reduce 

straying (e.g., using different acclimation or release strategies), physically removing 

hatchery-origin fish (distinguishable by their clipped adipose fins) from natural 

spawning areas at weirs or other physical barriers, maintaining some wild fish 

sanctuaries (i.e., populations or substantial portions of subbasins where the pHOS target 

is very low), and improving habitat conditions to increase the number of naturalorigin fish. 

Theoretically the two approaches can be equally effective at limiting domestication 

impacts. Guidelines exist for applying both approaches to primary, contributing, and 

stabilizing populations (see Appendix A of Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2009.). 

The risks posed by a particular program are based not on the program type but on the 

gene flow levels involved (i.e., the proportion of natural-origin broodstock and the 

proportion of hatchery-origin spawners). Chilcote et al. (2011) evaluated the effects of 

hatchery programs on 89 steelhead, coho, and Chinook salmon populations and 

concluded that the proportion of hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds (pHOS) 

was negatively correlated with population productivity; furthermore, there seemed to be 

no difference in the impact of integrated and segregated programs on productivity. The 

authors concluded that, under most circumstances, ensuring that hatchery-origin fish 

are segregated from natural-origin fish on the spawning grounds (i.e., reducing pHOS) 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-25

may be the best long-term conservation strategy regardless of brood type. A note about 

Chilcote et al.’s integrated-segregated comparison is that integrated programs 

complying with modern gene flow guidelines for reducing domestication are still 

uncommon and typically quite new, so a more detailed assessment and finer scale 

research of truly integrated hatchery programs is needed. 

In addition to managing potential genetic effects of hatchery-origin fish on naturalorigin fish, another important management consideration for both integrated and 

segregated programs is potential ecological effects, such as competition for food or space 

between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish. Therefore controlling pHOS and 

managing juvenile release levels to minimize detrimental interactions are important 

considerations in both integrated and segregated programs. 

Collectively, both Oregon and Washington will use both segregated and integrated 

programs, for fishery enhancement and to help recover natural populations above 

tributary dams that have blocked access to historical habitat and in other areas where 

the abundance of natural-origin fish is very low and hatchery supplementation can 

reduce extinction risk in the short term. Managers will limit the proportion of hatcheryorigin fish spawning naturally by using measures such as reducing overall production, 

changing production strategies to reduce straying (e.g., using different acclimation or 

release strategies), and physically removing hatchery-origin fish (distinguishable by 

their clipped adipose fins) from natural spawning areas at weirs or other physical 

barriers. Managing the genetic and ecological risks posed by hatchery fish with the 

demographic risks of low natural abundance and productivity is an important aspect of 

the strategy—one that is characterized by many uncertainties. Decisions about whether 

to use artificial propagation to help conserve populations must take into consideration 

the benefits to the population and ESU versus the risks. 

In both states, efforts to reduce hatchery impacts will be targeted at achieving a level of 

hatchery influence appropriate to each population, based on its target status. For 

example, for populations targeted for a high probability of persistence, Oregon has 

established a target of no more than 10 percent hatchery-origin spawners in natural 

spawning areas (ODFW 2010). Washington will establish similar targets in the 

Conservation and Sustainable Fisheries Plan being developed by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

The management unit plans also call for continuing existing programs to mark all 

hatchery-produced coho salmon with an adipose fin clip and for coded wire tagging 

enough fish from each hatchery to allow identification of the hatchery program of origin 

(ODFW 2010). The latter strategy will allow rearing and release strategies to be modified 

where needed to further reduce straying. Another element of the hatchery strategy will 

be to continue best management practices such as juvenile release strategies that 

minimize impacts to natural populations.

There are critical uncertainties associated with the approaches described above. For 

integrated programs, the primary uncertainties include the availability of sufficient 

numbers of naturally produced fish for incorporation into the hatchery broodstock and

the validity of assumptions concerning the natural fitness of hatchery-origin fish 

produced using natural broodstock. (For example, for a population with very low 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-26

natural-origin abundance, what are the tradeoffs of introducing natural-origin fish into 

hatchery broodstock versus waiting until natural production has increased?) For both 

integrated and segregated programs, a primary uncertainty concerns the effectiveness of 

measures such as weirs, acclimation, or release sites in achieving desired reductions in 

pHOS. A key unknown for all hatchery reforms is how quickly natural population 

diversity and productivity will respond to limiting the numbers of hatchery fish on the 

spawning grounds, and the extent to which limiting hatchery fish on the spawning 

grounds will affect the short-term demographic risks to the natural population by 

reducing the total number of spawners. 

NMFS and other recovery planning entities will work with hatchery managers to 

develop more detail about how and when the strategies described above will be 

implemented, including detail about how strategies will reduce the proportion of 

hatchery fish in naturally spawning populations in a manner that addresses short-term 

demographic risks while promoting progress toward recovery objectives. A near-term 

priority is for state and federal hatchery program managers, working with NMFS and 

other recovery planning entities, to develop detailed schedules for implementation of 

hatchery strategies that address these questions and that lay out plans for transitioning 

from existing hatchery management to practices consistent with recovery of listed 

populations, treaty fishing rights, and other applicable laws and policies.16 Through 

reduction of hatchery impacts, long-term priorities include achieving the recovery 

targets for each population and providing harvest opportunities. 

NMFS expects that in general these “transition schedules” will reflect a plan to 

determine the extent to which naturally produced adults are returning to a population’s 

habitat, as well as whether the intent for each population is to use hatchery 

supplementation. Use of hatchery supplementation should be considered an 

experimental strategy and not applied everywhere (that is, for some populations, the 

strategy should be to let the population restart based on stray spawners from nearby 

populations, an approach that has been demonstrated to work in the Scappoose and 

Clatskanie coho salmon populations). The schedules should also reflect an experimental 

design that will implement and evaluate several short-term recovery strategies to 

evaluate how different levels of natural and hatchery-origin fish on the spawning 

grounds affect progress toward recovery. The schedules should also address whether 

the long-term strategy for the use of hatchery fish is to isolate hatchery fish from the 

natural spawning population or to develop an integrated hatchery/natural population. 

For information on stratum-level hatchery strategies, see Sections 6.6.6, 7.4.3.6, 7.5.3.6, 

7.6.3.4, 8.6.6, and 9.6.5.

4.5 Harvest

Because of their wide-ranging migrations, anadromous salmonids are exposed to a 

variety of freshwater and ocean fisheries. Lower Columbia River salmonids are caught 

 16 In 2011, hatchery managers developed transition schedules for Lower Columbia River fall Chinook 

populations designated in this recovery plan as primary (see “Task E” at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Willamette-LowerColumbia/LC/BO-tasks.cfm).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-27

in commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries along the West Coast of the United States 

and Canada as well as in the mainstem Columbia River and its tributaries. These various 

fisheries focus on different stocks and populations, taking fish to meet commercial, 

recreational, and tribal harvest allocations (see Table 4-7). A given fishery may be 

selective for fin-clipped hatchery fish or non-selective. 

In the early part of the 20th century, nearly all commercial salmon fisheries in the Pacific 

Northwest operated in fresh water, where they harvested only mature salmon. Ocean 

fisheries became more important in the late 1950s as more restrictions were imposed on 

freshwater and coastal fisheries. Ocean harvest of salmon peaked in the 1970s and 1980s, 

after which commercial and recreational harvest of Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead declined. Harvest on Lower Columbia River tule fall Chinook salmon has been 

reduced from rates that averaged 69 percent during the years 1983 to 1993 (and that at 

one time exceeded 80 percent) to an average of 48 percent in the years since listing 

(NMFS 2008c). Tule fall Chinook salmon harvest rates recently have been further 

reduced, to 38 percent in 2009 and 2010 and 37 percent in 2011. Lower Columbia River 

spring Chinook salmon harvest averaged 51 percent during the years prior to listing 

(1980 to 1993) and has been reduced to around 20 percent since listing (NMFS 2008c). 

Harvest rates on Lower Columbia River coho salmon in the mid-1990s ranged from 75 to 

90 percent, but since 2005, when NMFS listed this ESU, rates have averaged 16 percent. 

Before the mid-1970s, harvest impacts on Lower Columbia River steelhead were 70 

percent or more. These impacts were reduced in 1975 when commercial harvest of 

steelhead in non-treaty fisheries was prohibited. Through implementation of mass 

marking and selective harvest, these rates were further reduced in the late 1980s and are 

now 10 percent or less. Columbia River chum salmon are not significantly affected by 

either direct or indirect harvest mortality (although historically harvest impacts were in 

the 90 percent range).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-28

Table 4-7

Fisheries Affecting Lower Columbia ESUs 

Area Fishery Type Targeted LCR ESU

Canada, Southeast 

Alaska (ocean)

Commercial troll and net

Recreational fishing

Chinook (fall and spring)

Coho

U.S. West Coast (ocean) Commercial troll 

Treaty Indian commercial troll

Recreational 

Chinook (fall and spring)

Coho

Lower Columbia River 

Mainstem

Commercial net; includes Select Area fisheries 

on fish returning to off-channel areas from net 

pen and hatchery releases in those places

Chinook (fall and spring)

Coho

Lower Columbia River 

Mainstem

Recreational; includes Select Areas Chinook (fall and spring)

Coho

Steelhead

Columbia River 

Mainstem above 

Bonneville (Zone 6a)

Treaty Indian set net fishing, both commercial 

and ceremonial and subsistence 

Recreational 

Steelhead

Chinook (fall and spring)

Oregon and Washington 

Tributaries

Recreational Steelhead

Coho

Chinook (fall and spring)

Table 4-8 summarizes average harvest rates for natural- and hatchery-origin Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead since the time of listing, along with the higher 

rates that generally occurred throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. Estimates of harvest 

impacts on a given ESU or run component can vary widely depending on the ESU, run 

component, and fisheries in question, the methods used, and the purpose of a given 

estimate. For example, estimates may be derived from coded-wire tags or through use of 

fishery models or other methods, depending on available information. Estimates may be 

for all fisheries or just those in the ocean or fresh water. In some cases, generalizations 

are sufficient to communicate the general magnitude of harvest impacts; in other cases, 

it is important to specify the source and methods used to derive a given estimate. The 

values in Table 4-8 rely where possible on published reports that contain specific 

estimates and explanations of how they were derived. These estimates may differ 

slightly from estimates in the management unit plans (which, in turn, may differ from 

each other). For purposes of indicating harvest impacts in general, all of these estimates 

are acceptable. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-29

Table 4-8

Recent (Since Listing) Estimated Harvest Rates on Lower Columbia River Salmon and 

Steelhead Compared to Historical Highs 

Stock Natural-origin Fish

(% harvested)

Hatchery-origin Fish

(% harvested)

Historical High 

(Natural-origin Fish)

 (% harvested)

Spring Chinook1 20 34 51

Fall Chinook (Tule)2 48 48 69

Fall Chinook (Bright)3 36 NA 54

Chum4 1.6 1.6 NA

Coho5 16 NA 82

Steelhead (winter)6

Steelhead (summer)7

4.1

6.7

NA

NA

70

70

1 20 percent = average since listing (1999-2006), derived assuming that freshwater exploitation rates were 

2 percent as a result of selective fisheries and constraints on upriver spring Chinook salmon); 34 percent = 

average since listing (1999-2006); 51 percent = average for the years 1980-1993 (NMFS 2008c).

2 48 percent = average since listing (1999-2006); 69 percent = average for the years 1983-1993 (NMFS 2008c).

3 36 percent = average since listing (1999-2006); 54 percent = average for the years 1979-1993 (NMFS 2008c).

4 Source: NMFS 2008c. Although a specific estimate of historical harvest rates is not available, harvest on 

chum salmon was high through the 1950s but has been limited since the 1960s to a few hundred fish per 

year, at most (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

2002). 

5 16 percent = average since listing (2005-2007); 82 percent = average for the years 1970-1993 (NMFS 2008c).

6 4.1 percent = average for the years 2001-2007 (NMFS 2008c); 70 percent = generalization from LCFRB 

(2010a).

7 6.7 percent = average for the years 1998-2007 (NMFS 2008c); 70 percent = generalization from LCFRB 

(2010a).

Fisheries affecting Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead are managed by a 

number of regional and international organizations and agreements, including the 

Pacific Salmon Commission (which implements the Pacific Salmon Treaty between the 

United States and Canada), the Pacific Fishery Management Council, state fishery 

regulations in Oregon and Washington, the Columbia River Compact, and management 

agreements negotiated between the parties to U.S. v. Oregon. In addition, federal statutes 

such as the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act 

influence harvest management decisions. Fishery managers continually review 

population abundance and marine survival conditions, and adjust harvest rates and 

timing to minimize impacts to natural-origin stocks. They generally try to manage 

fisheries using a combination of gear, timing, area, and mark-selective regulations to 

optimize the harvest of hatchery-origin fish and strong natural stocks and protect 

weaker natural-origin stocks. Because of these fishing regulations and other actions, 

harvest rates for hatchery-produced Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead are 

higher than for natural-origin fish of the same species.

Both the Oregon and Washington management unit plans provide detailed information 

on the fisheries that affect Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead and the 

organizations, agreements, and statutes that guide harvest management decisions (see 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-30

LCFRB 2010a pp. 3-62 through 3-69 and 3-70 through 3-75 and ODFW 2010 pp. 91 

and 94). 

4.5.1 Harvest Limiting Factors and Threats

Harvest affects the viability of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations 

by causing mortality to naturally produced adult fish, influencing population traits, and 

reducing nutrients in freshwater ecosystems. 

4.5.1.1 Harvest Mortality

Harvest mortality can be either direct or indirect. Direct harvest mortality is associated 

with fisheries that target specific stocks. This includes both single-stock (terminal) and 

mixed-stock (intercept) fisheries. Single-stock fisheries are the most effective method for 

targeting a specific stock and commonly occur in terminal harvest areas where one stock 

is known to be present. In mixed-stock fisheries, the management challenge is to harvest 

from mixed populations having various available surpluses (sometimes including 

populations with no surplus) as the populations move through the fishery area at 

various rates and abundances. Harvest of a specific stock in the mix can be achieved 

through management decisions (e.g., fishery openings that use time and area to target 

stocks when and where they are abundant relative to other stocks), fishery adaptations 

(e.g., gear designed to target specific stock/species), or fishery regulations (e.g., 

prohibitions against retaining certain species). 

Indirect mortality includes mortality of fish harvested incidentally to the targeted 

species or stock, fish that die after being captured by fishing gear but not landed, and 

fish that die after being caught and released. Despite the various methods used to target 

a specific stock, incidental bycatch—the harvest of nontargeted stocks—still occurs, 

largely because various stocks intermingle. Most fisheries have specific reporting 

requirements and limits for incidental bycatch that are intended to lessen the harvest 

impacts to non-targeted stocks. For the Columbia River, federal, state, and tribal harvest 

managers set specific incidental harvest percentages for protected stocks and manage 

fisheries so as not to exceed these limits. They also employ catch and release regulations 

that allow anglers to retain hatchery-origin salmon and steelhead but require them to 

release natural-origin fish. Mortality occurs as a result of catch and release because fish 

experience injury and trauma when they are caught and released, though the degree to 

which this occurs varies depending on the gear, timing and location of the fishery, and 

angler knowledge and skill. 

4.5.1.2 Selection for Size, Age, Sex, Distribution, or Timing

Harvest may selectively remove fish based on size, age, sex, distribution, or run timing, 

depending on the gear, timing, and location of the fishery. Such selection can affect the 

reproductive success, genetics, structure, and biodiversity of populations. Gear or run 

timing selectivity may influence population productivity by removing older, larger 

individuals, too many individuals of one sex, or the larger females carrying the most 

eggs. Fishing-influenced changes in the average sizes and ages of salmon populations 

have been well documented (Ricker 1981). Body size is related to redd digging success 

(Beacham and Murray 1987) and/or fecundity, and larger fish usually carry more eggs 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-31

(Sandercock 1991). When too many individuals with high reproductive potential are 

removed, the population’s productivity is reduced. A fishery might also 

disproportionately harvest the early portion of a run because of market- or industrydriven needs, or because of the timing of hatchery fish runs. Run timing is heritable 

(Garrison and Rosentreter 1981), so when fish that run at a certain time are selectively 

removed, the run timing of the entire population can shift. There is evidence that this 

may have occurred in Lower Columbia River coho salmon, with hatchery practices 

being a contributing factor (Cramer and Cramer 1994). However, it is likely that the 

reductions in coho salmon harvest in recent years have addressed concerns regarding 

selective effects of harvest because selective pressure is proportional to the magnitude of 

harvest impact. (For information on harvest-related limiting factors and recovery 

strategies specific to coho salmon, see Sections 6.4.4 and 6.6.5, respectively.)

4.5.1.3 Nutrient Supply and Carrying Capacity

Adult salmon carcasses in streambeds promote primary production, and their flesh and 

eggs are directly consumed by aquatic insects (Wipfli et al. 1999) and rearing fish (Bilby 

et al. 1996). This creates a biological feedback loop that benefits future salmon 

production. The chronic depression of salmon biomass to freshwater ecosystems may be 

contributing to reduced carrying capacity for salmon (Cederholm et al. 1999, Knudsen 

2002). By reducing the number of spawners, harvest plays a role in diminishing the 

amount of nutrients provided to the system. 

4.5.2 Regional Harvest Strategy

As noted above and described in more detail in Chapters 6 through 9, harvest managers 

have implemented substantial reductions in harvest for Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead since around the time NMFS listed these species 

under the ESA. Local recovery planners believe that for spring Chinook salmon, 

steelhead, and chum salmon, current harvest impacts are generally consistent with longterm recovery goals, at least in the near term. For these species the management unit 

plans recommend ancillary and precautionary measures to ensure that harvest does not 

adversely affect conservation and recovery in the future. For spring Chinook salmon, the 

Washington management unit plan notes that in the near term, harvest rates may need 

to be lower in some years to reduce the risks of critically low escapements during poor 

ocean conditions and to protect local populations. For fall Chinook and coho salmon, 

efforts will focus on (1) refinements in harvest management (including abundance-based 

management) to reduce risk to naturally produced fish, and (2) continued review of 

overall harvest rates. 

Although the harvest management requirements of each ESU are unique and must be 

addressed separately, the management unit recovery plans rely on several principles 

and general approaches that harvest managers will employ to address recovery needs 

related to harvest impacts on Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead. In general, 

the harvest strategy focuses on refining harvest management and reducing impacts 

where needed so that the target status of each population can be attained within an 

acceptable time frame, while still maintaining harvest opportunities that target hatcheryproduced fish.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-32

To accomplish these overall objectives, the management unit plans call for the use of six 

general approaches as appropriate and feasible (see Chapters 6 through 9 for details): 

• Abundance-based harvest management: In abundance-based harvest 

management, managers base annual harvest decisions on the predicted adult 

returns for that year. In some cases the management unit plans call for 

(1) refining the existing harvest matrix to ensure that it adequately accounts for 

weaker components of the ESU or reflects changes in natural production as 

recovery actions are implemented, or (2) developing methods to predict the 

abundance of natural-origin fish so that abundance-driven harvest principles can 

be effectively applied. 

• Weak stock management principles: In using weak stock management 

principles, harvest managers consider the impact of harvest rates on the 

abundance and productivity of weaker populations or population groupings in 

the ESU. For fall Chinook salmon harvest management, until recently harvest 

rates were established based on an indicator stock that was relatively healthy, 

because it was one of the few for which data on natural-origin returns were 

available. In response to actions outlined in the management unit recovery plans, 

managers have been exploring ways to incorporate additional, and weaker, 

stocks into those used to evaluate harvest impacts on the ESU.

• Mark-selective harvest: By marking hatchery fish and focusing harvest on them, 

managers can maintain harvest opportunity and increase harvest of hatcheryorigin fish while limiting impacts to natural-origin fish. The harvest recovery 

strategy includes actions to broaden the use of mark-selective fishing methods, 

including, in some cases, the development of new gear and methods for 

commercial fishing.

• Filling information needs: Filling information needs will allow harvest 

managers to make management decisions that better protect natural-origin fish. 

Needs include, for example, better information on natural-origin and hatcheryorigin spawner escapement, better estimates of natural population productivity, 

and better estimates of catch-and-release mortality rates in commercial and 

recreational fisheries. For coho salmon, there is an additional need to improve 

estimates of harvest impacts for natural-origin fish in ocean and Columbia River 

mainstem fisheries, because of the complexities of coho salmon’s protracted run 

timing and the mix of natural-origin and unmarked hatchery-origin fish.

• Ancillary and precautionary actions: For some species or runs (steelhead and 

chum salmon), recovery planners believe that current harvest impacts are 

generally consistent with long-term recovery goals, at least in the near term. For 

these species they recommend ancillary and precautionary measures to ensure 

that harvest does not adversely affect conservation and recovery in the future. 

• Adaptive management: As recovery proceeds and populations that now have 

little natural production begin to exhibit appreciable natural production, the 

management unit plans note that managers will need to reevaluate the impacts 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-33

of harvest on the recovering populations and possibly readjust harvest 

management.

The management unit plans include the societal goal of maintaining harvest 

opportunities created by hatchery fish and have prioritized ESA recovery strategies that 

allow for continued harvest opportunities while working toward recovery; these 

strategies have been incorporated into the recovery plan. In addition, as part of their 

broad sense goals, the management unit plans envision eventual harvest of naturally 

produced salmon and steelhead from healthy, self-sustaining populations.17

In terms of recommended harvest rates, Oregon management unit planners did not 

recommend specific annual harvest rates; instead, in its analyses it used modeled, longterm average harvest rates for each species and assumed that harvest actions such as 

abundance-based, weak-stock management and mark-selective commercial fisheries 

would be implemented. The Washington management unit plan recommends a phased 

harvest strategy involving lower near-term rates to reduce population risks until habitat 

improvements are achieved. Modeling in the Washington management unit plan shows 

scenarios in which harvest rates would be managed for benchmarks in each of three 12-

year implementation periods. The benchmark range is a target to be met within the 

designated period and to assess progress toward recovery. Generally the modeling 

projects that harvest rates eventually would increase as the benefits of other recovery 

actions were realized and natural production improved. These modeling results are 

planning targets and not predictions of future harvest rates; managers will establish 

future harvest rates based on observed indicators in Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead populations. 

In addition to these general approaches outlined above, NMFS will ensure that best 

available science continues to be used to determine harvest rates that, when combined 

with other threat reduction strategies, are likely to achieve positive growth rates and 

move populations to their target status over the long term. In ESA evaluations of 

hatchery and harvest actions, NMFS expects to analyze the combinations of effects of 

multiple actions when appropriate. For example, when harvest levels being evaluated 

are supported by hatchery production, the ecological, genetic, and other effects of 

hatchery production on both the juvenile and adult life stages also need to be considered 

as part of the harvest impact analysis.

4.6 Ecological Interactions

4.6.1 Limiting Factors and Threats Related to Ecological Interactions

Anthropogenic changes to habitat in the lower Columbia River region have altered the 

relationships between salmonids and other fish and wildlife species, leaving Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead more vulnerable to predation by piscivorous fish, 

 17 Currently, targeted harvest on naturally produced North Fork Lewis late-fall Chinook salmon is occurring 

when returns are above the escapement goal. The baseline persistence probability of this population, which 

has remained largely uninfluenced by hatchery production and has not experienced the population 

bottlenecks common among tule fall Chinook salmon populations, is estimated to be high.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-34

birds, and pinnipeds (i.e., seals and sea lions) and subject to competition with 

introduced fish species and possibly hatchery-origin fish for limited food and habitat. 

4.6.1.1 Predation

Significant numbers of salmon and steelhead are lost to fish, avian, and pinniped 

predators during migration and residency in the lower Columbia River and estuary 

(Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004a). Although predation on salmon and 

steelhead has always occurred, predation rates in the lower Columbia River and estuary 

are believed to be higher now than they were historically because of anthropogenic 

changes in physical habitat that have increased predator abundance, predation 

effectiveness, or both. In addition, when hatchery-origin fish are present in large 

numbers, they can attract avian and fish predators of salmonids and spur predatory 

behavior that results in mortality of natural-origin juveniles. In the Columbia Basin this 

typically occurs at reservoir heads, at the face of dams, and at turbine spillway and 

bypass discharge areas (LCFRB 2010a). Researchers have also hypothesized that it is 

possible that a mass of hatchery-origin fish migrating through an area could also 

overwhelm predators, providing a beneficial, protective effect to co-occurring naturally 

produced fish (Fresh and Schroder 1987, Fritts and Pearsons 2008).

Dams, pile dikes, and other in-water structures in the lower Columbia River and estuary 

have created slack-water refuges and micro-habitats preferred by the northern 

pikeminnow, a native fish that feeds on juvenile salmonids. A bounty program on 

pikeminnow instituted in 1990 has reduced predation by 25 percent (Friesen and Ward 

1999, NMFS 2000b). Still, pikeminnow in the lower Columbia mainstem have been 

estimated to consume up to 9.7 million juvenile salmon per year (Beamesderfer et al. 

1996). Introduced fish such as walleye, smallmouth bass, and catfish also prey on 

juvenile salmonids in the estuary and mainstem, although in smaller numbers than 

pikeminnow; these warm-water species may benefit from the elevated water 

temperatures in Bonneville Reservoir and the Columbia River estuary.

Human alterations of the Columbia River estuary have contributed to increased 

predation by native birds, specifically Caspian terns, double-crested cormorants, and 

various gull species. Piscivorous birds congregate near dams and in the estuary around 

man-made islands and consume large numbers of emigrating juvenile salmon and 

steelhead (Roby et al. 1998). Populations of terns and cormorants in the estuary have 

increased significantly, in part because the deposition of dredged materials has created 

high-quality habitat for terns (Bottom et al. 2005). These habitats include Rice Island (at 

River Mile [RM] 21), which terns used for nesting from 1984 to 2000, and East Sand 

Island (RM 5), which has been an active nesting site since 1986. Double-crested 

cormorants are attracted to the estuary in part because of its tens of thousands of pilings, 

pile dikes, and other structures that provide perching opportunities. The loss of habitat 

elsewhere in the world has contributed to Caspian terns and double-crested cormorants 

relocating to the Columbia River estuary, which now has the world’s largest nesting 

colonies of these species. In addition to being more numerous than they were 

historically, terns and cormorants in the estuary may be more effective in their predation 

because decreased fine sediment inputs to the estuary have reduced the turbidity that 

otherwise would help shield juvenile salmonids from predators. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-35

The increased numbers of terns and cormorants have translated into measurable 

predation impacts on juvenile salmonids (Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004). In 2006, Caspian terns and 

double-crested cormorants each were estimated to consume approximately 3.6 million 

juvenile salmon and steelhead (Collis and Roby 2006). How many of these juveniles are 

from the Lower Columbia River salmon ESU or steelhead DPS is unknown. However, 

evidence suggests that the steelhead DPS is likely to be affected by predation more than 

the other ESUs. Species-specific estimates of predation by Caspian terns from 1988 to 

2000 were consistently highest for steelhead (9.4 to 12.7 percent), followed by coho 

salmon (3.6 to 4.1 percent), with the lowest rates observed in yearling Chinook salmon 

(1.6 to 2.9 percent) (Ryan et al. 2003). 

Pinniped predation on adult spring Chinook salmon and winter steelhead in the 

Columbia River estuary continues to increase. On the West Coast, the total abundance of 

California sea lions is approximately 250,000; Stellar sea lions total about 31,000, and 

Pacific harbor seals total about 25,000 (Griffin 2006). Each spring about 1,000 Stellar sea 

lion males, 3,000 Pacific harbor seals, and 800 California sea lions take up residence in 

the lower estuary (Griffin 2006). Approximately 1,000 sea lions and harbor seals enter 

the freshwater portion of the estuary; of these, approximately 80 animals (primarily 

California sea lions) congregate at Bonneville Dam. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

estimates that annual adult mortality at Bonneville Dam because of pinnipeds (primarily 

California sea lions) ranged from 0.4 percent (2002) to 4.2 percent (2007) during the 

study period ending in 2011 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2011a).18 Other, radiotelemetry-based studies suggest that annual pinniped predation on spring Chinook 

salmon and winter steelhead at Bonneville Dam may be as high as 8.5 percent and 20 

percent, respectively (NMFS 2008c, Appendix G). There is a need for reliable estimates 

of the mortality caused by pinnipeds throughout the entire estuary and plume. 

4.6.1.2 Competition

Habitat loss and alteration and releases of large numbers of hatchery fish have the 

potential to increase competition among salmonids and between salmonids and other 

fish species for food and habitat. In the case of salmon and steelhead, competition can 

occur in the tributaries, estuary, or ocean. 

Competition among Salmonids

Competition is a natural process that helped shape the abundance of salmon and 

steelhead throughout their evolutionary history (Fresh 1997). The pressures of natural 

selection on salmon and steelhead promoted development of an array of life history 

strategies, involving differences in migration timing and habitat usage, so that 

populations could avoid competing for limited spatial and food resources (Quinn 2007, 

Naish et al. 2008) and, ultimately, maximize their marine survival. 

At current levels of natural production it is unlikely that competition among salmonids 

is a limiting factor in the tributaries of the lower Columbia region. Even when hatchery 

 18 Estimated consumption of adult salmonids ranged from a low of 1,010 in 2002 to a high of 6,081 in 2010; 

the percent of run consumed varied among reporting years in part because of changes in run size. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-36

fish are released to tributaries in large numbers, releases usually are timed so that the 

juveniles are ready to migrate. It is more likely that competition between hatchery-origin 

fish and natural-origin fish is occurring in the Columbia River estuary, where food 

resources are limited and juvenile salmon and steelhead become concentrated on their 

way to the ocean (Fresh 1997).

Over the last century, habitat loss in the Columbia River estuary19 has simplified 

Chinook salmon life history diversity there and concentrated the remaining salmon in 

more limited and fragmented regions (Bottom et al. 2005)—a process that may have 

increased competition. However, the impact of habitat loss on the Columbia River 

estuary’s capacity to support juvenile salmon is unknown (Bottom et al. 2005). 

Another unknown is the cumulative impact of hatchery-origin salmon and steelhead on 

natural-origin salmon and steelhead. When hatchery-origin fall Chinook subyearlings 

overlap spatially and temporally with natural-origin fall Chinook and chum salmon in 

the Columbia River estuary, they may compete directly for limited resources of food and 

space (Berejikian et al 2009), especially if the hatchery fish are released within a 

relatively short period or are larger than their naturally produced counterparts (NMFS 

2011a, ODFW 2010). The competitive advantage that larger size or greater numbers 

imparts may result in so-called density-dependent mortality among Lower Columbia 

River salmon and steelhead (ODFW 2010) or compromise growth in natural-origin fall 

Chinook salmon juveniles, such that it takes longer to reach a critical size threshold 

above which mortality from predation will be reduced (Allee 2011). However, so little is 

known about the ecological interactions of hatchery- and natural-origin fish in the 

Columbia River estuary that it is difficult to conclude that competition for limited 

resources is occurring (Flagg et al. 2000). NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

currently is investigating this topic. For more information see Appendix F.

Competition between Salmonids and Other Species

The new microdetritus-based food web in the estuary has benefited zooplanktivores, 

including American shad (Alosa sapidissima) (Sherwood et al. 1990). Shad were 

introduced to the Columbia River system in 1885, and their populations have grown 

substantially since then (Welander 1940, Lampman 1946), with up to 4 million adults 

returning to the estuary each year (Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004a as 

cited in NMFS 2011a). The shad diet overlaps with that of subyearling salmonids in the 

Columbia River estuary, and juvenile shad and subyearling salmonids use similar 

heavily vegetated backwater habitats (McCabe et al. 1983). By their sheer numbers, shad 

represent a threat to trophic relationships in the Columbia River (NMFS 2011a). Other 

exotic fish species such as introduced walleye and catfish also have been able to 

capitalize on degraded conditions in the upper reaches of the estuary and altered food 

web dynamics through predation and competition for food resources (Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council 2004a). 

 

19 Diking and filling have reduced the surface area of the estuary by approximately 20 percent compared to 

historical levels, and approximately 43 percent of the tidal marshes and 77 percent of tidal swamps that 

existed in the Columbia River estuary before 1870 have been lost (Fresh 2005). In the Skagit River system in 

Washington, scientists have linked comparable habitat losses (i.e., 75 percent loss of tidal delta habitat) with 

density-dependent mortality of Skagit River fall Chinook (Beamer et al. 2005). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-37

4.6.1.3 Disease Transfer

Salmon and steelhead can be infected by a variety of bacterial, viral, fungal, and 

microparasitic pathogens. Numerous diseases can result from pathogens that occur 

naturally in the wild or that may be transmitted to natural-origin fish via infected 

hatchery-origin fish. Disease transmission from hatchery-origin fish to natural-origin 

fish does not appear to be widespread in the lower Columbia region (LCFRB 2010a). To 

reduce the likelihood of disease transmission from hatchery salmonids to naturally 

produced fish, hatchery managers have established practices for monitoring fish health 

and sanitation and ensuring that hatchery fish are reared and released in healthy 

condition.20

4.6.2 Regional Ecological Interactions Strategy

The regional ecological interactions strategy involves reducing predation on all Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations by redistributing Caspian terns and 

cormorants, increasing the pikeminnow bounty program in the Columbia River 

mainstem, and reducing marine mammal predation at Bonneville Dam using non-lethal 

or lethal measures. Managing predation by sea lions at Bonneville Dam is expected to 

benefit Gorge-stratum populations of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead 

ESUs. Pikeminnow are the focus of piscivorous predator reduction efforts because they 

are much more abundant in the region than introduced fish predators such as bass, 

walleye, and channel catfish (NMFS 2011a, LCFRB 2010a).

To reduce the risk of adverse ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and 

naturally produced salmon and steelhead, the Oregon and Washington management 

unit plans propose a combination of critical uncertainties research and near-term 

precautionary measures. Research needs include determining the degree of temporal 

and spatial overlap of hatchery- and natural-origin fish in the Columbia River estuary, 

the effect of competition on natural-origin fish, and the impact of predation of hatcheryorigin fish on naturally produced fish. Near-term measures focus on restoring estuary 

habitat for fall Chinook and chum salmon and managing hatchery releases to minimize 

the risk of competition in the tributaries and Columbia River estuary (i.e., do not release 

hatchery-origin fish into the tributary rearing areas of natural-origin fish, coordinate 

releases to keep large numbers of hatchery-origin fish from accumulating in the estuary, 

and time releases so that hatchery-origin juveniles are at the optimal age and size to 

emigrate rapidly downstream and exit the estuary quickly, thus limiting interactions 

with natural-origin fish).

In addition, Allee (2011; see Appendix F) recommends research, modeling, and expert 

panel workshops to identify and evaluate potential methods of reducing the ecological 

interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish in the Columbia River 

estuary and thus lowering the risk of such interactions to natural-origin fish. These 

activities would focus on increasing scientific understanding of the habitat needs of 

hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish, habitats in the estuary, and risk to natural-origin 

 20 For example, see Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee 1989, Integrated Hatchery 

Operations Team 1995, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1996, Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes 1998, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995, and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-38

fish in different habitats. Allee also supports recommendations by the Hatchery 

Scientific Review Group (HSRG) (2009) that would reduce the risk of negative 

cumulative impacts of hatchery-origin fish on naturally produced salmon and steelhead. 

For example, the HSRG recommends limiting hatchery production to the minimum 

needed to meet the systemwide harvest and conservation goals of the various managers, 

taking into account the carrying capacity of the mainstem, estuary and ocean; working 

with agencies and tribes to maximize survival of hatchery-origin fish consistent with 

conservation goals; and monitoring, evaluating, and adaptively managing hatchery 

programs to become more effective in meeting goals for conservation and harvest 

(Allee 2011).

4.6.3 Effects of Recovery Actions on Other Species

Recovery actions for listed Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead have the 

potential to affect other species, both positively and negatively. These effects would 

most likely be manifested either through changes in habitat or through changes in 

predator/prey relations and interspecies competition resulting from shifts in the 

abundance and spatial distribution of LCR salmon and steelhead. In addition, one 

possible effect as salmon and steelhead recover and productivity improves is the 

increased delivery of marine-derived nutrients to inland ecosystems; these nutrients 

support other, non-salmonid species, including terrestrial species.

The species that share habitat or interact with LCR salmon and steelhead as predators or 

prey are numerous, as are the potential effects to those species from recovery actions. It 

is not possible to discuss them in detail in this plan. Nevertheless, in implementation, it 

will be useful and at times imperative to consider the effects of salmon recovery actions 

on other species. The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to 

evaluate such impacts for federal actions that significantly affect the environment. For 

species listed under the ESA, section 7(A)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to 

ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence or adversely modify critical habitat of a listed species.

Generally, habitat-related recovery actions for Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead would be likely to benefit many other species that share those habitats. For 

instance, the overall goals of the habitat recovery strategy to protect and restore 

functioning habitats and watershed processes are likely to benefit all native aquatic and 

riparian species, and it may be possible to specifically design protection and restoration 

projects in ways that benefit additional native species. For instance, culverts can be 

designed to pass not only salmon and steelhead but also lamprey, which do not have the 

jumping abilities of salmon and steelhead. Riparian habitat restoration projects can 

benefit not only aquatic but wildlife species, such as by providing micro-topographic 

features that would allow refuge from flooding. 

Overall, NMFS expects that implementation of habitat protection and restoration actions 

for LCR salmon and steelhead would have concomitant benefits to many other native 

species and that adverse impacts would be rare. However, it is important that project 

developers consider such impacts. For example, dewatering of streams during instream 

restoration work can have adverse impacts on other aquatic species, and projects that 

create new equilibriums of species composition can shift predator/prey relationships in 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-39

ways that could be adverse to a species. It is especially important that, during 

implementation of this recovery plan, entities consider potential impacts of habitat 

projects on other federally or state protected species or species of concern. Design of 

recovery actions involving large-scale changes in habitat, such as actions to reduce 

Caspian tern and cormorant nesting habitat or large scale changes from freshwater to 

saltwater marsh habitat should consider impacts to target and non-target species. 

A potential adverse impact of hatchery recovery actions on other species could occur 

through changes in numbers of hatchery fish produced. It is possible that hatchery 

production locally or throughout the Lower Columbia would be decreased as part of a 

recovery strategy. Although other recovery actions are aimed at increasing numbers of 

natural-origin salmon and steelhead, total salmon and steelhead production could be 

temporarily or permanently less than it is at present. Lower total production would 

mean less availability of salmon as predators or prey. In addition, the use of weirs at 

hatcheries to prevent hatchery-origin fish from spawning naturally could affect other 

species’ habitat access.

Changes in harvest management could affect other species through shifts in 

predator/prey relationships and through impacts to species affected as bycatch in 

salmon fisheries. In addition, efforts to control predation on salmon by species such as 

marine mammals and birds could potentially affect the predator species.

Table 4-9 lists other federally listed aquatic species that could be affected by salmon 

recovery actions described in this plan. These species and the potential for salmon 

recovery actions to affect them are discussed briefly below.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-40

Table 4-9

Federally Listed Fish and Wildlife Species in the Lower Columbia Recovery 

Planning Area

Species Range in Lower 

Columbia River Basin Federal Listing Status Type of Interaction with Salmon and Steelhead

Bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus)

Lewis and Clackamas 

subbasins, Lower 

Columbia River 

mainstem 

Federally threatened Predator of salmon and 

steelhead

Eulachon 

(Thaleichthys 

pacificus)

Lower Columbia River 

and tributaries

Southern DPS 

Federally threatened 

Freshwater prey of salmon 

and steelhead

Green Sturgeon 

(Acipenser 

medirostris)

Columbia River estuary Southern DPS 

Federally threatened 

Bycatch in salmon fisheries

Southern resident 

killer whale

Occasionally forage on 

salmon in the mouth of 

the Columbia River 

Federally endangered Saltwater predator of salmon

Steller sea lion Forage on salmon 

along lower Columbia 

River and estuary 

Federally threatened Predator of salmon

Adapted from NMFS (2010c), Tables 3-9 and 3-29. 

4.6.3.1 Bull Trout 

Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory forms and require complex habitat 

characterized by cold water and a variety of pools, riffles, water depths, and velocities. 

Bull trout occur from the Northwest Territories of Canada south to northern Nevada. 

Historically they were found in about 60 percent of the Columbia Basin, but their 

distribution and abundance in the basin have declined significantly (Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). 

In 1999, bull trout were listed as a threatened species under the ESA (64 Federal Register

58909). Oregon has also listed them as a sensitive species. In 2002, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service published a draft recovery plan for bull trout. Twenty-two recovery 

units support bull trout listed in the Columbia Basin, three of which—the Willamette, 

Lower Columbia, and Hood River—overlap with the area addressed by this plan (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, 2010). 

Bull trout, salmon, and steelhead can occur in similar habitat types; however, bull trout 

are more sensitive than salmon and steelhead to increased water temperatures, poor 

water quality, habitat conditions, and low-flow conditions; thus, they more often occur 

in higher elevations with less disturbed habitats. Bull trout also require colder water 

temperatures than other salmon and trout, so they are more likely to occur in headwater 

streams where temperatures tend to be cooler. Because bull trout feed primarily on fish 

as subadults and adults, they can be a substantial predator of young salmon and 

steelhead. Juvenile bull trout feed on similar prey as salmon and steelhead (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2006; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008, 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-41

The primary interaction between bull trout and salmon and steelhead is that bull trout, 

as subadults and adults, prey on juvenile salmon and steelhead.21 Overall changes in 

abundance of salmon and steelhead or bull trout could shift predator-prey relations. In 

addition, because bull trout use similar aquatic habitats as salmon and steelhead, the 

species can compete for food resources and space. In general, actions to protect and 

improve salmon habitat would also likely benefit bull trout. 

4.6.3.2 Eulachon

The eulachon (also known as Columbia River smelt) is a small anadromous fish that 

occurs in the eastern North Pacific Ocean. Eulachon spend most of their lives in salt 

water but return to fresh water to spawn at 3 to 5 years of age. Juvenile eulachon rear in 

shallow to moderately deep nearshore marine areas. The Columbia River and its 

tributaries are believed to support the largest eulachon run in the world (NMFS 2008g). 

Eulachon regularly spawn in the mainstem Columbia River (up to Bonneville Dam), in 

Skamokawa Creek, and in the Cowlitz, Grays, Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy 

rivers (NMFS 2010b). 

The southern eulachon DPS (i.e., populations spawning in rivers from the Nass River in 

British Columbia south to the Mad River in California) is listed as a threatened species 

under the ESA and is a Washington State species of concern. 

Newly hatched and juvenile eulachon are a prey species for salmon and steelhead 

(although predation of eulachon by salmon and steelhead has not been cited as a reason 

for eulachon declines). In addition, spawned-out and decomposing eulachon contribute 

to the nutrient cycle of freshwater streams (NMFS 2010c). 

4.6.3.3 Green Sturgeon

The green sturgeon is a long-lived, slow-growing anadromous fish that ranges from 

Alaska to Mexico. Juvenile green sturgeon rear and feed in both fresh and estuarine 

waters for 1 to 4 years before dispersing into marine waters. They spend 6 to 10 years at 

sea before returning to fresh water to spawn for the first time. Adults spawn multiple 

times and spend 2 to 4 years at sea between spawning events (71 Federal Register 17757). 

Green sturgeon feed on benthic invertebrates and small fish; salmon and steelhead have 

not been documented as part of their diet (NMFS 2005b and 2009b). 

The southern green sturgeon DPS, which occurs in freshwater rivers and coastal 

estuaries and bays along the west coast of North America, including estuaries of Oregon 

and Washington and the lower Columbia River, is listed as a threatened species under 

the ESA (71 Federal Register 17757). The DPS aggregates in the Columbia River estuary 

and Washington estuaries in the late summer (NMFS 2009b). 

Interactions among green sturgeon and salmon and steelhead are limited to the 

Columbia River estuary and Pacific Ocean marine waters. Green sturgeon are caught as

bycatch in salmon and steelhead fisheries (NMFS 2009b). 

 21 Bull trout also prey on other fish species (e.g., non-native trout); this may reduce predation by those 

species on juvenile salmon and steelhead. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-42

4.6.3.4 Southern Resident Killer Whale

The southern resident killer whale stock has been observed in ocean waters of 

Washington and Oregon and near the mouth of the Columbia River during winter and 

early spring months (Ford et al. 2000, Wiles 2004, Zamon et al. 2007, NMFS 2008h, and 

NMFS 2008i). As of July 2011, the total estimated population of southern resident killer 

whales was 88 individuals (Center for Whale Research). Southern resident killer whales 

are ESA-listed as endangered and are also protected under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 

Southern resident killer whales consume a variety of fish and one species of squid, but 

salmon—Chinook salmon in particular—are their preferred prey (NMFS 2008i). 

Although the prey base of southern resident killer whales that forage near the mouth of 

the Columbia River is unknown, prey of southern resident killer whales that forage 

elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest has been recorded. Sampling in diet studies of 

southern resident killer whales has been conducted primarily during spring, summer, 

and fall months in inland waters off Washington and British Columbia (Ford and Ellis 

2006, Hanson et al. 2007, and Hanson et al. 2010a). In inland waters from May to 

September, the southern residents’ diet consists of a high percent of Chinook salmon, 

with on overall average of 88 percent of their diet consisting of Chinook salmon (Hanson 

et al. 2010a). Other salmonids eaten include steelhead (5 percent), coho salmon (3 

percent), sockeye salmon (2 percent), and chum salmon (less than 1 percent). Ford and 

Ellis (2006) found that killer whales captured older (i.e., larger) than average Chinook 

salmon. 

Other results indicated that, during fall months in inland waters, southern resident killer 

whales foraging within Puget Sound shift their diet to primarily chum salmon (Hanson 

et al. 2007). Although southern resident killer whales are thought to feed on salmon and 

steelhead year-round, their diet from January through April is poorly understood; 

during this period they range in ocean waters from British Columbia to central 

California (Krahn et al. 2002, Krahn et al. 2007, Ford and Ellis 2006, NMFS 2008h). 

The preference of southern resident killer whales for Chinook salmon in inland waters, 

even when other species are more abundant, combined with information indicating that 

these whales consume salmon year-round, makes it reasonable to expect that southern 

resident killer whales prefer Chinook salmon when available in coastal waters. Sightings 

of resident killer whales off Westport, Washington, and in the mouth of the Columbia 

River may coincide with the spring Chinook salmon run in the Columbia River (Krahn 

et al. 2004, Zamon et al. 2007, NMFS 2008i). There are direct observations of two 

southern resident killer whale predation events in coastal waters; in both cases, the prey 

species was identified as Columbia River Chinook salmon (Hanson et al. 2010b). 

Chemical analyses also indicate the importance of salmon in the year-round diet of 

southern resident killer whales (Krahn et al. 2002; Krahn et al. 2007). Furthermore, Ford 

et al. (2009) found that southern resident killer whale survival rates correlated directly 

with the availability of Chinook salmon. 

Based on recent estimates assuming a diet of only Chinook salmon, the southern 

resident killer whale stock requires, in total, approximately 289,000 to 347,000 Chinook 

salmon annually (Noren 2010), but the extent to which they depend on specific salmon 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-43

runs is not known. At different times of the year, southern resident killer whales may 

consume Chinook salmon that originate in the Fraser River, Puget Sound, Washington 

and Oregon coastal streams, the Columbia River, and central California streams 

(Hanson et al. 2010a), but data are insufficient to identify the proportion of different 

stocks in the year-round southern resident killer whale diet. 

There is no evidence that southern resident killer whales distinguish between 

hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon (Hanson et al. 2010a). Salmon production 

from Columbia River hatcheries may have partially compensated for declines in many 

natural-origin salmon populations to the benefit of resident killer whales (NMFS 2008i). 

The contribution of all salmon and steelhead from the Columbia Basin to the prey 

available to the whales in the ocean is substantial. 

4.6.3.5 Steller Sea Lion

The eastern stock of Steller sea lions is resident year-round on the coasts of Oregon and 

Washington, and from the mouth of the Columbia River up to Bonneville Dam (NMFS 

2008i and 2008c). No Steller sea lion rookeries (i.e., mating areas) exist near the 

Columbia River, but individuals use the South Jetty at the mouth of the river as a 

haul-out site year-round (Jeffries et al. 2000). Numbers vary seasonally, with peak counts 

of approximately 1,000 individuals during fall and winter months (NMFS 2008h). The 

eastern stock of Steller sea lions is listed as threatened under the ESA and is protected 

under Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Steller sea lions forage opportunistically on a wide variety of fishes in response to 

seasonal abundance. Foraging studies in the lower Columbia River and at Pacific 

Northwest coastal sites describe a variety of Steller sea lion prey species, including 

Pacific whiting, rockfish, eulachon, Pacific hake, anchovy, Pacific herring, staghorn 

sculpin, salmonids, octopus, and lamprey (Jeffries 1984, NMFS 2008c). 

The extent to which eastern stock Steller sea lions depend on salmon in the lower 

Columbia River and nearby coastal waters is unknown, although some Steller sea lions 

exploit salmon at Bonneville Dam (NMFS 2008k). Salmon remains were found in 

25 percent of the scat samples obtained in 2007 at Bonneville Dam. Surface observation 

at Bonneville Dam suggests that Steller sea lions in the Columbia River rely more on 

sturgeon than on salmon and steelhead (NMFS 2008h and 2008k and Stansell et al. 2011). 

However, predation by Steller sea lions on salmon elsewhere by (e.g., south Oregon 

coast) (NMFS 1997) appears to have increased since the 1980s and Steller sea lions have 

been observed preying on salmon smolts and adults (NMFS 1996). 

4.7 Climate Change

4.7.1 Climate Change Limiting Factors and Threats

Likely changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, ocean acidification, and sea 

level height have implications for survival of Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead in their freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-44

4.7.1.1 Information Sources

Recent descriptions of expected changes in Pacific Northwest climate that are relevant to 

listed salmon and steelhead include the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 

national climate change impacts assessment (Karl et al. 2009), the Washington Climate 

Change Impacts Assessment (Climate Impacts Group 2009), and the Oregon Climate Change 

Assessment Report (Oregon Climate Change Research Institute 2010).22 These assessments 

are based on empirical observations and climate model projections. The regional climate 

assessments include projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 

(IPCC) global climate models (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007b), 

which were downscaled to reflect regional terrestrial and aquatic conditions (e.g., 

Salathe 2005) and ocean conditions (e.g., Stock et al. 2011). A new IPCC global climate 

assessment and a new national climate assessment, which will include updated analyses 

for the Pacific Northwest, are currently under way, with new climate projections 

expected by 2014. 

Trends and projections of ocean acidification are reviewed in chapters of the Oregon and 

Washington climate assessments or subsequent publications of those chapters (Mote et 

al. 2010, Ruggiero et al. 2010, Huppert et al. 2009), based on primary research such as 

Feely et al. (2008). 

Mote et al. (2008) and Ruggiero et al. (2010) described observed sea level height changes 

along the Pacific coast and reviewed literature projecting sea level changes in the Pacific 

Northwest. The West Coast Governors Alliance, along with the U.S. Geological Survey, 

NOAA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have sponsored a study that the 

National Academies of Science will complete by 2013 that will provide sea level rise 

estimates for California, Oregon, and Washington for the years 2030, 2050, and 2100.23

Various localized studies of projected sea level height changes are also available (e.g., 

Glick et al. 2007).

Recent reviews of the effects of climate change on the biology of salmon and steelhead in 

the Columbia Basin and the California Current region24 include the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) (2007a), the Oregon and Washington climate 

assessments (Huppert et al. 2009, Mantua et al. 2009 and 2010, and Hixon et al. 2010), 

NMFS (2010a), Ford (2011), and Crozier (2011). Crozier (2011, Section 9.3) includes a 

review of what is currently known regarding effects of ocean acidification on salmon 

and steelhead. In addition to these reviews, the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center will be producing annual updates describing new information regarding effects 

of climate change relevant to salmon and steelhead as part of the FCRPS Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan. 

 22 These documents are highlighted because they are recent comprehensive reviews of observed and 

expected climate change impacts in the United States and Pacific Northwest. Numerous other primary 

literature publications are available, many of which are cited in these reports. Additionally, NMFS annually 

reviews and summarizes scientific literature relevant to the effects of climate change on Pacific salmon and 

steelhead. The review of 2009 literature is included as Chapter 2.2.1 of NMFS (2010a); Crozier (2011) reviews 

2010 literature.

23 See http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49290.

24 The California current is a Pacific Ocean current that moves south along the western coast of North 

America, beginning off southern British Columbia and ending off southern Baja, California.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-45

The following text summarizes expected climate change effects on listed Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead, based on the above sources. 

4.7.1.2 Effects of Climate Change on LCR Salmon and Steelhead 

Freshwater Environment

Climate records show that the Pacific Northwest has warmed about 1.0 °C since 1900, or 

about 50 percent more than the global average warming over the same period. The 

warming rate for the Pacific Northwest over the next century is projected to be in the 

range of 0.1 to 0.6 °C per decade. Although total precipitation changes are predicted to 

be minor (+ 1 to 2 percent), increasing air temperature will alter snowpack, stream flow 

timing and volume, and water temperature in the Columbia Basin. Climate experts 

predict the following physical changes to rivers and streams in the basin:

• More precipitation falling as rain rather than snow (as a result of warmer 

temperatures) 

• Diminished snowpack and alterations in stream flow volume and timing

• A trend toward loss of snowmelt-dominant and transient subbasins

• Continued increases in summer and fall water temperatures

More winter flooding is expected in transient and rainfall-dominated subbasins. 

Transient subbasins are those where stream flow is strongly influenced both by direct 

runoff from rainfall and by springtime snowmelt because surface temperatures in winter 

typically fluctuate around the freezing point. Over the course of a given winter, 

precipitation in transient subbasins frequently fluctuates between snow and rain, 

depending on relatively small changes in air temperature (Mantua et al. 2009).

Historically transient subbasins, such as those in which Gorge and some Cascade 

populations spawn and rear, will experience lower late-summer flows. For example, 

Figure 4-2 shows the expected patterns of stream flow in the White Salmon River, the 

Kalama River, and the Columbia River at Bonneville Dam in the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s. 

The White Salmon River is a transient subbasin that currently exhibits a NovemberDecember peak hydrograph caused by rain and an April-May peak that is associated 

with melting snow. In future years the April-May snowmelt-driven peak is expected to 

be much lower or possibly nonexistent. As a more rainfall-driven river, the Kalama 

currently does not exhibit a distinct spring peak. Future flows are expected to increase in 

the winter and decrease in the spring, but the general rainfall-driven pattern will 

continue. The hydrograph for the mainstem Columbia River at Bonneville Dam is 

strongly influenced by spring snowmelt in Canada and the western Rocky Mountains. 

In the future, the spring freshet is expected to occur earlier, with fall and winter flows 

increasing and summer and early fall flows decreasing.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-46

Figure 4-2. Projected Average Monthly Stream Flow (cfs) for the White Salmon and Kalama 

Rivers and the Mainstem Columbia River at Bonneville Dam25

(Note: Blue = historical average stream flow; red = projected stream flow for the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s; 

shading = range of simulation results) 

The predicted trend toward loss of snowmelt-dominant and transient subbasins will be 

most pronounced for some Gorge and Cascade subbasins with high-elevation 

headwaters that currently experience a spring freshet from melting snow. The 

hydrographs of most subbasins in the Lower Columbia domain are currently rainfalldominated and will continue to be so as climate changes (Figure 4-3).

 25 Projections are made under two IPCC (2007) anthropogenic aerosol and greenhouse gas emission 

scenarios: A1B corresponds to “moderate” and B1 corresponds to “low” emissions during the 21st century 

(Stock et al. 2011). Figures are from the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group and are available 

at: http://www.hydro.washington.edu/2860/products/sites.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-47

Figure 4-3. Preliminary Maps of Predicted Hydrologic Regime for 1970-1999 and 2070-209926

Source: University of Washington Climate Impacts Group (www.hydro.washington.edu/2860/).

In the state of Washington, summer and fall water temperatures will continue to rise, 

with an increase of less than 1 °C expected by the 2020s but an increase of 2 to 8 °C 

predicted by the 2080s. By the 2080s, the number of Washington subbasins with a 

maximum weekly water temperature that exceeds 21.5 °C is expected to double, and 

thermal barriers greater than 21 °C are expected to increase in duration from 1 to 5 

weeks in the 1980s to 10 to 12 weeks in the 2080s.

The changes in air temperatures, river temperatures, and river flows in the Pacific 

Northwest are expected to cause changes in salmon and steelhead distribution, 

behavior, growth, and survival. Although the magnitude and timing of these changes 

currently are poorly understood and specific effects are likely to vary among 

populations, the following effects on listed salmon and steelhead in fresh water are 

likely: 

• Winter flooding in transient and rainfall-dominated subbasins may scour redds, 

reducing egg survival.

• Warmer water temperatures during incubation may result in earlier fry 

emergence, which could be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on 

location and prey availability.

• Reduced summer and fall flows may reduce the quality and quantity of juvenile 

rearing habitat, strand fish, or make fish more susceptible to predation and 

disease.

 26 Uses emission scenario A1B and global climate model CGCM3.1(T47), based on classification of annual 

hydrographs as in Beechie et al. (2006).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-48

• Reduced flows and higher temperatures in late summer and fall may decrease 

parr-smolt survival. 

• Warmer temperatures will increase metabolism, which may either increase or 

decrease juvenile growth rates and survival, depending on availability of food.

• Overwintering survival may be reduced if increased flooding reduces suitable 

habitat.

• Timing of smolt migration may be altered such that there is a mismatch with 

ocean conditions and predators.

• Higher temperatures during adult migration may lead to increased mortality or 

reduced spawning success as a result of lethal temperatures, delay, increased 

fallback for Gorge populations at Bonneville Dam, or increased susceptibility to 

disease and pathogens.

The degree to which phenotypic or genetic adaptations may partially offset these effects 

is being studied but currently is poorly understood.

Estuarine Environment 

Climate change will also affect salmon and steelhead in the estuarine and marine 

environments. Effects of climate change on salmon and steelhead in estuaries include the 

following: 

• Warmer waters in shallow rearing habitat may alter growth, disease 

susceptibility, and direct lethal or sublethal effects. 

• Higher winter freshwater flows and higher sea level elevation may increase 

sediment deposition and wave damage, possibly reducing the quality of rearing 

habitat.

• Lower freshwater flows in late spring and summer may lead to upstream 

extension of the salt wedge, possibly influencing the distribution of salmonid 

prey and predators.

• Increased temperature of freshwater inflows and seasonal expansion of 

freshwater habitats may extend the range of non-native, warm-water species that 

are normally found only in fresh water. 

In all of these cases, the specific effects on salmon and steelhead abundance, 

productivity, spatial distribution and diversity are poorly understood. 

Marine Environment 

Effects of climate change in marine environments include increased ocean temperature, 

increased stratification of the water column, changes in the intensity and timing of 

coastal upwelling, and ocean acidification. Hypotheses differ regarding whether coastal 

upwelling will decrease or intensify, but even if it intensifies, the increased stratification 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-49

of the water column may reduce the ability of upwelling to bring nutrient-rich water to 

the surface. There are also indications in climate models that future conditions in the 

North Pacific region will trend toward conditions that are typical of the warm phases of 

the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, but the models in general do not reliably reproduce the 

oscillation patterns. Hypoxic conditions observed along the continental shelf in recent 

years appear to be related to shifts in upwelling and wind patterns that may be related 

to climate change. 

Climate-related changes in the marine environment are expected to alter primary and 

secondary productivity, the structure of marine communities, and, in turn, the growth, 

productivity, survival, and migrations of salmonids, although the degree of impact on 

listed salmonids currently is poorly understood. A mismatch between earlier smolt 

migrations (because of earlier peak spring freshwater flows and decreased incubation 

period) and altered upwelling may reduce marine survival rates. Ocean warming also 

may change migration patterns, increasing distances to feeding areas. 

In addition, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive changes in seawater 

chemistry, increasing the acidification of seawater and thus reducing the availability of 

carbonate for shell-forming invertebrates, including some that are prey items for 

juvenile salmonids. This process of acidification is under way, has been well 

documented along the Pacific coast of the United States, and is predicted to accelerate 

with increasing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Ocean acidification has the potential to reduce survival of many marine organisms, 

including salmon and steelhead. However, because there is currently a paucity of 

research directly related to the effects of ocean acidification on salmon and steelhead 

and their prey, potential effects are uncertain. Laboratory studies on salmonid prey taxa 

have generally indicated negative effects of increased acidification, but how this 

translates to the population dynamics of salmonid prey and the survival of salmon and 

steelhead is uncertain. Modeling studies that explore the ecological impacts of ocean 

acidification and other impacts of climate change concluded that salmon landings in the 

Pacific Northwest and Alaska are likely to be reduced.

Summary of Likely Impacts of Climate Change

NMFS’ 2010 5-year status report for salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest (Ford 

2011) includes a summary of likely effects of climate changes on Pacific Northwest 

salmon and steelhead. Table 4-10, which is reproduced from Table 79 of Ford (2011), 

summarizes the main climate change effects and indicates the certainty of their 

occurrence and their expected magnitude. Table 4-10 addresses all listed salmon and 

steelhead in the Pacific Northwest, so some effects, such as some terrestrial climate 

effects on forest and riparian structure, are more relevant to interior Columbia Basin 

species. Ford (2011) point out that we need to consider the cumulative impacts of climate 

change across the salmon life cycle and across multiple generations. Because these 

climate effects are multiplicative across the life cycle and across generations, small 

effects at individual life stages can result in large changes in the overall dynamics of 

populations. This means that the mostly negative effects predicted for individual life 

history stages will most likely result in a substantially negative overall effect of climate 

change on Pacific Northwest salmonids over the next few decades.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-50

Table 4-10

Summary of Expected Climate Effects on Pacific Northwest ESUs

Habitat

Physical 

Change

Processes 

Affecting Salmon

Effect on Pacific Northwest 

Salmonid ESUs Certainty

Warmer, drier 

summers

Increased fires, increased tree 

stress, and disease will 

affect large woody debris, 

sediment supplies, and 

riparian zone structure

- - to 0

Largest effects likely to be felt in 

Interior Columbia populations, 

particularly in areas at lower 

and middle elevations

Terrestrial Low

Reduced 

snowpack, 

warmer 

winters

Increased growth of higher 

elevation forests will affect 

large woody debris, 

sediment processes, and 

riparian zone structure

0 to + Low

Reduced 

summer flow

Less accessible summer 

rearing habitat

- - to -

Effects most pronounced in areas 

that currently have low flow, 

particularly in Interior Columbia 

populations

Moderate

Earlier peak 

flow

Potential migration timing 

mismatch

-- to 0

Largest effects in “transition” 

areas that move from a 

snowmelt-dominated 

hydrograph to a rain-driven 

hydrograph

Moderate

Increased 

floods

Redd disruption, juvenile 

displacement, upstream 

migration

- - to 0

Largest effects in “transition” 

areas that move from a 

snowmelt-dominated 

hydrograph to a rain-driven 

hydrograph

Moderate

Freshwater

Higher stream 

temperature

Thermal stress, restricted 

habitat availability, 

increased susceptibility to 

disease and parasites

- - to -

Largest effects likely to occur in 

what currently are hightemperature areas of the 

Interior Columbia and lowelevation areas

Moderate
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-51

Habitat

Physical 

Change

Processes 

Affecting Salmon

Effect on Pacific Northwest 

Salmonid ESUs Certainty

Higher sea 

level

Reduced availability of wetland 

habitats

-- to -

Largest effects on ESUs with a 

life history highly dependent on 

relatively long-term rearing in 

estuarine and tidally influenced 

areas

High

Higher water 

temperature

Thermal stress and increased 

susceptibility to disease and 

parasites

- - to –

Largest effects on ESUs with

highly estuarine-dependent life 

cycles and ESUs subject to 

stress at earlier life stages

Moderate

Estuarine

Combined 

effects

Changing estuarine ecosystem 

composition and structure

- - to + Low

Marine Higher ocean 

temperature

Thermal stress, shifts in 

migration, susceptibility to 

disease and parasites

- - to -

Effects likely to vary by ESU, 

depending on ocean 

distribution

Moderate

Intensified 

upwelling

Increased nutrients (food 

supply), coastal cooling, and 

ecosystem shifts; increased 

offshore transport

0 to ++

Effects likely to vary by ESU and 

correspondence of 

outmigration with upwelling 

patterns

Moderate

Delayed spring 

transition

Food timing mismatch with 

outmigrants, ecosystem 

shifts

- - to 0

Effects likely to vary by ESU 

depending on correspondence 

of outmigration with upwelling 

patterns

Moderate

Increased 

acidity

Disruption of food supply, 

ecosystem shifts

- - to -

Effects likely to vary by ESU, 

dependent upon age and size 

at outmigration and ocean 

distribution

Moderate

Combined 

effects

Changing composition and 

structure of ecosystem, 

changing food supply and 

predation

- - to +

Effects likely to vary by ESU 

depending on age and size at 

outmigration and ocean 

distribution 

Low

Effect ratings are: + +, strongly positive; +, positive; 0, neutral; -, negative, - -, strongly negative. Certainty 

level combines the certainty of the physical change with the certainty of the effect. 

Source: Table 79 of Ford (2011); Table 79 was adapted from Stout et al. (2010) and includes citations for the 

main sources of information relied on for each entry.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-52

4.7.2 Regional Climate Change Strategy

4.7.2.1 Mitigation Strategy

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007b) defines climate change 

mitigation as implementing policies and technological changes to reduce greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions and enhance greenhouse gas sinks. Reduction of greenhouse gas 

emissions is the most reliable solution to the adverse effects of climate change on listed 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead over the long term. The climate change 

mitigation strategy for this recovery plan is for relevant entities to implement 

greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Possible mechanisms for doing so include the West 

Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative (http://www.ef.org/westcoastclimate/) 

and the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s recommendations (Oregon Department 

of Energy 2009). There is also a need to integrate these local strategies with mitigation 

strategies at larger spatial scales. 

4.7.2.2 Adaptation Strategy

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007c) defines climate change 

adaptation as adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected 

climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial 

opportunities. Adaptation strategies that contain measures to reduce impacts of climate 

change on Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead include the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council’s Independent Scientific Advisory Board (2007a) review, the 

interim Washington State Integrated Climate Change Response Strategy (Washington 

Department of Ecology 2011), the Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework (Oregon 

Department of Land Conservation and Development 2010), and the draft National Fish, 

Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 2012). 

These adaptation plans commonly include the following general elements:

• Conserve adequate habitat to support healthy fish populations and ecosystem 

functions in a changing climate.

• Manage species and habitats to protect ecosystem functions in a changing climate.

• Reduce stresses not caused by climate change.

• Support adaptive management through integrated observation and monitoring and 

improved decision support tools.

The ISAB’s recommendations for incorporating climate change considerations into 

restoration and recovery planning and recommended actions for reducing climate 

change impacts on Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead are specifically targeted to 

salmon and steelhead populations in the Pacific Northwest (Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board 2007a). NMFS incorporates the ISAB’s recommendations by reference 

into this recovery plan, including those displayed in Table 4-11, some of which have 

been slightly modified to specifically apply to recovery of Lower Columbia River 

species. The management unit plans contain actions that implement many of these 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-53

strategies. There will be a need throughout implementation for additional evaluation of 

the extent to which the management unit plan actions have been tailored specifically to 

address climate change impacts in the Lower Columbia. 

A number of the strategies in Table 4-11 are currently being implemented through the 

2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement, the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, local recovery plans, and activities 

and research of other federal and non-federal agencies. 

In addition, the management unit plans and estuary recovery plan module (NMFS 2011) 

identify climate change as a threat, incorporate general approaches to climate change, 

and present specific actions that are responsive to the general strategies outlined 

above.27 Some of these actions overlap with tributary habitat actions or, in the case of the 

Oregon management unit plan, actions to reduce the impacts of human population 

growth. The following actions from ODFW (2010) are representative of management 

unit plan actions to reduce the impacts of climate change on salmon and steelhead:

• Develop recommendations for land management scenarios that address 

hydrograph changes that are due to climate change, impervious surfaces, and 

other factors that result in altered water runoff. 

• Protect and restore riparian areas to improve water quality, provide long-term 

supplies of large wood to streams, and reduce impacts that alter other natural 

processes. 

• Develop a methodology to assess and identify, and then protect, stream reaches 

and population strongholds that will be resilient/resistant to climate change 

impacts. 

• Protect and restore headwater rivers and streams (salmon- and non-salmonbearing) to protect the sources of cool, clean water and normative hydrologic 

conditions. 

• Conduct a detailed climate change risk analysis for all populations and use this 

to help prioritize actions, or develop new ones, that are contained in the 

implementation schedule. 

• Implement credible, science-based programs, policies, and rules that contribute 

collectively to protect fish and water resources.

These actions are examples only. For more information, see Table 7-3A of ODFW (2010) 

and p. 5-70 of LCFRB (2010a).

 

27 In calculating target abundances, Oregon recovery planners included an additional 20 percent “buffer” to 

account for the impacts of future threats—both climate change and human population growth—and expect 

that targets and actions will be adjusted as more specific information on the impacts of climate change 

becomes available. Washington recovery planners did not incorporate the impact of climate change or 

human population growth into its calculations of target abundances. NMFS’ view is that this difference in 

approach is not significant for the reasons explained in Section 5.2.2.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-54

Table 4-11

Strategies and Representative Actions to Address Climate Change Impacts

Category Strategy Representative Actions

Planning 

Actions

Assess potential climate change impacts in 

each subbasin and develop a strategy to 

address these concerns as part of updates to 

subbasin and recovery plan. NMFS will help 

provide technical assistance to planners to 

help ensure that climate change is addressed 

thoroughly and consistently in subbasin and 

recovery plans.

Ensure that subbasin and recovery planners 

are aware of pertinent resources. As needed, 

NMFS and other entities will direct planners to 

tools and climate change projections that will 

aid them in assessing the subbasin impacts of 

climate change. Resources currently include:

• Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts 

Consortium: http://pnwclimate.org/

• Northwest Climate Science Center: 

http://www.doi.gov/csc/northwest/index.cfm

• University of Washington Climate Impacts 

Group: http://cses.washington.edu/cig/

• Oregon State University’s Oregon Climate 

Change Research Institute: http://occri.net/

• NOAA’s climate sciences program: 

http://www.climate.gov/

• North Pacific Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative: 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Climatechange/n

plcc/

Establish reserves through the purchase of 

land or conservation easements in locations 

likely to be sensitive to climate change that 

have high ecological value. Landscape-scale 

considerations will be critical in the choice of 

reserve sites because habitat fragmentation 

and changes of habitat will influence the ability 

of such reserves to support particular biota in 

the future. (Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board 2007a summarizes some generally 

accepted guidelines for selection of reserves 

or protected areas that are specifically 

intended to preserve biodiversity in the face of 

changing climate.)

Tributary 

Habitat

Minimize temperature increases in tributaries 

by implementing measures to retain shade 

along stream channels and augment summer 

flow

• Protect or restore riparian buffers, 

particularly in headwater tributaries that 

function as thermal refugia

• Remove barriers to fish passage into 

thermal refugia

Manage water withdrawals to maintain as high 

a summer flow as possible to help alleviate 

both elevated temperatures and low stream 

flows during summer and autumn

• Buy or lease water rights

• Increase efficiency of diversions
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-55

Category Strategy Representative Actions

Protect and restore wetlands, floodplains, or 

other landscape features that store water to 

provide some mitigation for declining summer 

flow

• Identify cool-water refugia (subbasins with 

extensive groundwater reservoirs)

• Protect these groundwater systems and 

restore them where possible

• May include tributaries functioning as coolwater refugia along the mainstem 

Columbia where migrating adults 

congregate

• Maintain hydrological connectivity from 

headwaters to sea

Mainstem and 

Estuary Habitat

Reduce temperatures and create thermal 

refugia

• Remove dikes to open backwater, slough, 

and other off-channel habitat, thus 

increasing flow through these areas and 

encouraging increased hyporheic flow 

Mainstem and 

Tributary 

Hydropower

Augment flow from cool or cold-water storage 

reservoirs to reduce water temperatures, or 

create cool-water refugia in mainstem 

reservoirs and the estuary

• Investigate increasing storage in existing 

reservoirs or adding new storage facilities,, 

but must be cautious with this strategy

• Investigate the possibility of implementing 

a seasonal flow strategy that includes coolwater releases from storage reservoirs in 

Lower Columbia River tributaries in late 

summer

Use methods to increase surface passage of 

juveniles at Bonneville and The Dalles dams to 

move fish quickly through warm forebays and 

past predators in the forebays.

• Use corner collector at Bonneville Dam

Reduce water temperatures in adult fish 

ladders at Bonneville and The Dalles dams

• Use water drawn from lower cool strata of 

forebay

• Cover ladders to provide shade

Reduce the impact of higher fish predation 

rates caused by warming water temperature by 

reducing predator populations 

• Reduce predation by introduced 

piscivorous species (e.g., smallmouth 

bass, walleye, and channel fish) in

mainstem reservoirs and the estuary

Harvest When setting annual quotas and harvest limits, 

conduct and use assessments that take into 

consideration the changing climate 

• Reduce harvest during favorable climate 

conditions to allow stocks that are 

consistently below sustainable levels 

during poor phase ocean conditions to 

recover their numbers and recolonize 

areas of freshwater habitat

• Use stock identification to target hatchery 

stocks or robust wild stocks, especially 

when ocean conditions are not favorable

Hatcheries Reduce density-dependent interactions among 

hatchery- and natural-origin fish; such 

interactions can cause lower growth and 

survival at times when climate effects reduce 

ocean productivity 

• Control juvenile migration by reducing 

hatchery releases or modifying release 

timing to reduce competition and ensure 

that ocean entry coincides with favorable 

ocean conditions

• Consider changing systemwide habitat 

conditions in determining appropriate 

stocks for reintroduction programs
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-56

4.8 Human Population Growth

4.8.1 Limiting Factors and Threats Related to Human Population Growth

An estimated 5 million people live in the Columbia Basin, and the human population in 

the region is expected to increase significantly in coming years. By the end of the 

twenty-first century, between 40 million and 100 million people are predicted to be 

living in the Columbia Basin (National Research Council 2004). Some communities—

both urban and rural—can expect their populations to double between 2000 and 2020; 

significant growth also is projected for unincorporated areas. In Oregon, particularly fast 

growth is predicted in Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Hood River, and Multnomah 

counties—areas that support Lower Columbia River coho, Chinook, and steelhead and 

Columbia River chum salmon. The population of these counties is expected to increase 

by 41 percent from 2003 to 2040 (State of Oregon Office of Economic Analysis 2004). In 

Washington, the populations of Clark and Cowlitz counties are projected to grow by 65 

and 53 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2030 (Washington State Department 

of Transportation). 

The Oregon management unit plan describes in general the expected future impacts of 

human population growth on Columbia Basin fish and wildlife populations, based on 

work by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) for the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian tribes, and NMFS (Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board 2007b). The ISAB reached the following conclusions:

• Population growth will increase the demand for water, land, and forests that are 

key to fish and wildlife populations. This demand for resources will increase 

threats to and extinction risks for fish and wildlife. 

• Changes in land use related primarily to increases in human population size and 

per-capita consumption rates will increase water use, affect land management 

and, ultimately, affect fish and wildlife habitat. 

• Increased demand for residential land is accelerating the rate of conversion of 

forest and agricultural lands. 

• The dominant ongoing pattern of settlement in the Columbia Basin is exurban 

sprawl—i.e., the building of new communities on the fringes of urban growth 

boundaries. Exurban sprawl causes loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 

habitat and increases infrastructure costs, social conflict, and harmful 

interactions among people and wildlife. 

• Urbanization will increase the amount of impervious surfaces (pavement, roofs 

etc.) in watersheds, increasing surface runoff during storm events and reducing 

groundwater recharge and thus base flows. 

• The effects of population growth will combine with those of climate change to 

increase pressure on fish and wildlife habitats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-57

• Demands for fresh water from surface and groundwater will increase. Climate 

change-related decreases in the snowpack at higher elevations will exacerbate 

this situation, especially during low-flow summer and fall seasons. 

• Population-related factors external to the Columbia Basin, such as international 

trade, shipping, dredging, hazardous material transport, and airborne pollution, 

will affect fish and wildlife habitat in the basin. (See ODFW 2010, and 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board 2007b.)

4.8.2 Regional Strategy for Human Population Growth

The Oregon and White Salmon management unit plans identified both human 

population growth and climate change as future threats to lower Columbia salmon and 

steelhead. Although Oregon recovery planners believe that actions should be 

implemented now to prevent or mitigate for the future impacts of these threats (ODFW 

2010), the magnitude of the impacts is unknown. Given this uncertainty, in developing 

improvement targets for Oregon populations, recovery planners added an additional 

20 percent in abundance above that needed to achieve the WLC TRT criteria for stratum 

viability. This 20 percent conservation “buffer” is intended as a precautionary measure, 

to help mitigate for the impacts of both human population growth and climate change in 

the interim until the magnitude of these threats is better understood. Once the impacts 

of human population growth and climate change can be estimated more accurately, 

targets and actions in the Oregon management unit plan can be adjusted accordingly 

(ODFW 2010). 

The Washington management unit plan did not identify future growth in the human 

population as a threat to lower Columbia salmonids or incorporate the impacts of future 

threats—either population growth or climate change—in its calculations of target 

abundance for recovery of its populations. Instead, managers and scientists expect to use 

the adaptive management process to refine strategies, measures, and actions as the 

Washington management unit plan is implemented, based on the observed response to 

initial recovery efforts. Effective adaptive management will require that initial actions be 

of a magnitude sufficient to produce a measurable response, and that monitoring be 

sufficient to detect a response (LCFRB 2010a). 

All three management unit plans include actions or strategies that will lessen the 

impacts of human population growth. The Oregon management unit plan identifies 

specific actions as mitigation for this threat, while the Washington management unit 

plan incorporates mitigation measures into larger scale principles and strategies that are 

intended to address six major categories of threats to lower Columbia salmon and 

steelhead. Representative actions and strategies from the Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans are shown in Table 4-12. The White Salmon management unit 

plan includes broader scale strategies that, although not linked specifically to human 

population growth, will help mitigate this threat; examples include protecting the 

highest quality habitats through acquisition and conservation, conserving rare and 

unique functioning habitats, consistently applying best management practices and 

existing laws to protect and conserve natural ecological processes, and providing public 

outreach to educate river uses and others (NMFS 2011). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-58

Table 4-12

Representative Actions and Strategies to Mitigate for Human Population Growth

Oregon Management Unit Plan Washington Management Unit Plan

• Prevent impacts from future development in the 100-

year floodplain—i.e., impacts on wetlands and 

vegetation, stormwater effects, and the net impacts of 

new dikes, levees, and floodwalls. Mechanisms to 

prevent impacts in the 100-year floodplain include 

updating floodplain maps and incorporating them into 

land use planning, providing FEMA funding for land 

acquisition in the floodplain, developing new 

regulations, and enhancing efforts to enforce existing 

land use regulations, laws, and ordinances. 

• Encourage the Oregon Division of State Lands to (1) 

require avoidance and minimization of impacts to 

waters of the state in priority areas identified in the 

Oregon management unit plan, (2) work with 

landowners to design projects that avoid and 

minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the 

state, (3) explore opportunities to target 

compensatory mitigation towards areas that have 

high intrinsic potential for salmon and/or have been 

identified as priority areas for restoration, and (4) 

explore conservation easements for state-owned 

lands with high value for salmon recovery. 

• Protect existing high-quality or intact habitat, including 

riparian areas and off-channel habitat in the Columbia 

River estuary; actively purchase off-channel estuarine 

habitats in urban and rural settings.

• Encourage and provide incentives for local, state, and 

federal regulatory entities to maintain, improve, and 

enforce habitat protections throughout the lower 

Columbia region. 

• Provide more resources and incentives to small (nonmetropolitan) communities so they have the 

infrastructure to better manage runoff from 

impervious surfaces. 

• Educate landowners about the benefits of protecting 

and stewarding intact ecosystems and the costs of 

degraded systems.

• Remove or modify over-water structures to provide 

beneficial habitats.

• Reduce the stranding of juvenile salmonids on 

estuarine beaches as a result of ship wakes.

• Reduce salmonid exposure to toxic contaminants: 

implement pesticide and fertilizer best management 

practices; identify and reduce industrial, commercial, 

and public sources of pollutants; and restore or 

mitigate contaminated sites in the Columbia River 

estuary. 

• Implement stormwater best management practices in 

cities and towns. 

• Consider salmon recovery needs up front in the 

comprehensive land use planning process, along 

with other social, infrastructure, and service needs. 

• Protect habitat conditions and watershed functions 

through land use planning that guides population 

growth and development—i.e., plan growth and 

development to avoid sensitive areas (wetlands, 

riparian zones, floodplains, unstable geology, etc.), 

encourage the use of low-impact development 

methods and materials, and apply mitigation 

measures to offset potential impacts 

• Protect and restore instream flows through water 

rights closures, purchase or lease of existing water 

rights, relinquishment of existing unused water 

rights, enforcement of water withdrawal 

regulations, and implementation of water 

conservation, use efficiency, and water re-use 

measures to decrease consumption.

• Protect and restore runoff processes, in part by 

limiting additional watershed imperviousness, 

managing stormwater runoff, and protecting and 

restoring wetlands in developed and developing 

areas. 

• Protect and restore water quality, in part by 

reducing fecal coliform bacteria levels and inputs of 

chemical contaminants from developed lands. This 

involves managing industrial point sources of 

pollution, eliminating urban and rural sewage 

discharge to streams, and treating storm runoff 

before it is discharged to streams.

• Manage recreation to protect and restore sensitive 

areas, such as by rehabilitating damaged terrain, 

limiting use, and managing human waste. 

• Maintain and/or establish adequate resources, 

priorities, regulatory frameworks, and coordination 

mechanisms for effective enforcement of land and 

water use regulations for the protection and 

restoration of habitats significant to fish and wildlife 

resources. This involves establishing cooperative 

enforcement partnerships among agencies, public, 

land owners, and industry and establishing 

priorities to emphasize protection in key areas and 

facilities where recovery efforts are focused.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

4-59

For more detail on mitigating for the growing human population in the Columbia Basin, 

see the Oregon and Washington management unit plants (ODFW 2010 pp. 100-101, 226-

239; LCFRB 2010a Chapter 5, S.S10, S.M1, S.M3, S.M12, S.M13, S.M15, and 2.M16).

4.9 Summary 

No single factor, threat, or threat category accounts for the declines in the species 

addressed in this recovery plan; instead, the status of Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead and Columbia River chum salmon is the result of the cumulative impact of 

multiple limiting factors and threats. Although this chapter and the recovery analyses 

that follow highlight major recovery topics, factors, and actions, recovery of the Lower 

Columbia species will be accomplished through improvements in every general threat 

category. Even small increments of improvement will play an important role. When the 

need for improvement for most ESUs is so large, the contribution of no population or 

threat reduction can be discounted.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-1

5. Overall Approach to Species Recovery Analyses

This chapter describes the management unit recovery planners’ overall analytical 

approach to species recovery and summarizes the key analyses that formed the basis of 

their recovery strategies. Where relevant, the chapter describes differences in 

approaches and discusses the implications of those differences. For more detailed 

information on these methodologies, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, 

ODFW 2010, NMFS 2013). The chapters that follow describe the results of these analyses 

as applied to each Lower Columbia River ESU or DPS.

In general, the management unit recovery planners did the following:

1. Evaluated the baseline status of their respective populations using techniques 

based on those recommended by the WLC TRT (McElhany et al. 2003, McElhany 

et al. 2004, McElhany et al. 2006) and demonstrated in McElhany et al. (2007).1

2. Identified limiting factors for each Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead 

population.

3. For each population, quantified the estimated baseline impacts of six categories of 

threats—tributary habitat, estuary habitat, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and 

ecological interactions or predation—that were useful as an organizing construct 

for grouping limiting factors. 

4. Established a target status for each population, taking into consideration (1) each 

population’s potential for improvement, in view of available habitat and historical 

production, (2) the degree of improvement needed in each stratum to meet 

WLC TRT guidelines for a viable ESU, and (3) for some ESUs, the desire to 

accommodate objectives such as maintaining opportunities to harvest hatcheryorigin fish. Management unit recovery planners used the term “conservation gap” 

to refer to the difference between the baseline and target status for each 

population.

5. Calculated the population-specific improvements in abundance and productivity

and, in some cases, spatial structure and diversity that would be needed to achieve 

each population’s target status (i.e., to close the conservation gap).2

6. Identified a “threat reduction scenario” for each population, meaning a specific

combination of reductions in threats that would lead to that population achieving 

its target status. 

 1 McElhany et al. (2007) was a collaborative effort by NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center staff, ODFW 

staff, and a consultant working for the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board to refine the approach to 

population status assessment.

2 The Oregon management unit plan contains explicit targets for spatial structure and diversity; in the 

Washington management unit plan, spatial structure and diversity improvements are implicit in the 

abundance and productivity targets. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-2

7. Identified and scaled recovery strategies and actions to reduce threats by the 

targeted amount in each category. Management unit planners identified recovery 

strategies and actions through meetings and workshops with stakeholders, 

including representatives of implementing and affected entities.

8. Considered the probable effects of actions, established benchmarks for 

implementation, and identified critical uncertainties and research, monitoring, and 

evaluation needs for each species for incorporation into an adaptive management 

framework (see Chapter 10 of this plan). 

9. Developed implementation frameworks that address organizational structures, 

prioritization methods, systems for tracking implementation, coordination needs 

and approaches, and stakeholder involvement (see Chapter 11of this plan). 

The following text further describes the analytical framework used by the management 

unit recovery planners. 

5.1 Baseline Population Status

Management unit recovery planners assessed each population’s status based on 

methods described in technical reports developed by the WLC TRT and demonstrated in 

McElhany et al. (2007). (For a description of these reports, see Section 2.5.2). For each 

population, management unit recovery planners evaluated and scored the four VSP 

attributes of productivity/abundance, spatial structure, and diversity individually and 

then integrated the VSP attribute scores to yield an overall population score; this overall 

score reflects the population’s baseline probability of persistence, as shown in Table 5-1.

For information on specific benchmarks and scoring techniques, see McElhany et al. 

(2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007, primarily the latter two documents), pp. 50 through 75 of 

ODFW (2010), and pp. 4-11 through 4-18 of LCFRB (2010a).

Readers should note that in the management unit plans, Oregon described its 

populations in terms of extinction risk, while Washington described its populations in 

terms of persistence probability. This is a difference in terminology only, as persistence 

probability is simply the inverse of extinction risk status (e.g., high persistence 

probability is the equivalent of low extinction risk, as shown in Table 5-1). This ESUlevel plan presents the status of all populations in terms of persistence probability (this 

is consistent with the language of the WLC TRT technical documents) but uses 

“extinction risk” in some contexts when that term is more illuminating. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-3

Table 5-1

Population Scores and Corresponding Probability of Persistence (or Extinction) 

 Score* Probability of 

Persistence**

Population 

Status

Probability of 

Extinction **

Extinction

Risk

0 0 – 40% Very low (VL) 60 – 100% Extinct or at very high risk of 

extinction (VH)

1 40 – 75% Low (L) 25 – 60% Relatively high risk of extinction (H)

2 75 – 95% Medium (M) 5 – 25% Moderate risk of extinction (M)

3 95 – 99% High (H) 1 – 5% Low/negligible risk of extinction (L)

4 > 99% Very high (VH) < 1% Very low risk of extinction (VL)

* Population scores between whole numbers are rounded. For example, a score of 2.75 would be rounded up 

to 3; a score of 2.45 would be rounded down to 2.

** Probability over a 100-year time frame.

Source: McElhany et al. (2006).

5.1.1 Oregon Approach to Assessing Baseline Status

Oregon recovery planners established a “baseline period” from which to assess 

population status based on the most recent data available at the time of their 

assessment—generally up through 2006-2008 for modeling of abundance and 

productivity and through 2004 for assessment of other VSP parameters and threat 

assessments (ODFW 2010).

Consistent with the WLC TRT’s approach (described in McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006 

and demonstrated in McElhany et al. 2007), the four VSP parameters of 

productivity/abundance, spatial structure, and diversity were the foundation of the 

status assessment for Oregon populations. Oregon recovery planners also used the 

WLC TRT’s scoring method—i.e., total score = 2/3 A&P + 1/6 spatial + 1/6 diversity

(see McElhany et al. 2007)—to derive a composite score for each population. As in 

McElhany et al. (2007), Oregon recovery planners based scoring of the 

abundance/productivity attribute on population viability modeling and used a mix of 

quantitative and qualitative metrics to score the spatial structure and diversity 

attributes. 

To reflect the uncertainty associated with both the data and the assessment methods, 

and consistent with McElhany et al. (2007), Oregon recovery planners presented results 

as a distribution of possible extinction risk scores, displayed graphically as a diamond 

shape (see Figure 5-1), rather than as a single score. The widest point of the diamond 

reflects the most likely extinction risk category, while the upper and lower points 

correspond to the extremes of possible extinction risk values. The height of the diamond 

represents the degree of uncertainty about the assessment. During later steps in their 

recovery analyses, Oregon recovery planners used the extinction risk category at the 

diamond’s widest point as the baseline extinction risk.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-4

Figure 5-1. Sample “Diamond Graph” Showing Populations with Different Distributions 

of Extinction Risk (Inverse of Persistence Probability)

5.1.2 Washington Approach to Assessing Baseline Status

Washington recovery planners evaluated population status circa 1999—around the time 

when most Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead were listed under the ESA 

(LCFRB 2010a)—and did not use time series information after the baseline period in any 

quantitative analysis; they considered spatial structure and diversity conditions as of 

1999). The Washington recovery planners chose this point because it ensures that the 

baseline assessments reflect the conditions that led to the initial ESA listings and that 

must be addressed through recovery actions. 

As in Oregon, the four VSP parameters of productivity/abundance, spatial structure, 

and diversity were the foundation of the Washington status assessments. However, 

instead of deriving an overall population score using the WLC TRT’s formula (total 

population status score = 2/3 A&P + 1/6 spatial structure + 1/6 diversity), Washington 

recovery planners assessed population status by (1) scoring the 

abundance/productivity, diversity, and spatial structure attributes for each population

(see Table 4-4 in LCFRB 2010a) and then (2) designating the lowest of the individual 

attribute scores as the overall population status. The Washington recovery planners 

considered this “lowest attribute” approach intuitively simpler, less subjective, and 

more effective in capturing spatial structure and diversity concerns.

A consultant to the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board developed 

abundance/productivity scores for each Washington population using a quantitative 

population viability analysis that uses a stochastic stock-recruitment model. This 

approach is similar to the risk analyses in McElhany et al. (2007) and the Oregon 

management unit plan. Scores for spatial structure and diversity that go into the overall 

population status scores were based on qualitative analyses and expert judgment using 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-5

criteria established by a technical work group and based on guidance established by the 

WLC TRT (McElhany et al. 2003). 

The Washington management unit plan notes that there is significant uncertainty in the 

population status assessments—on the order of at least one point in the population 

score. The uncertainty is a consequence of the limited data and limited understanding of 

the relationships between population attributes and persistence probability (LCFRB 

2010a).

5.1.3 White Salmon Approach to Assessing Baseline Status

For baseline population status, the White Salmon recovery planners used status 

assessments completed by the WLC TRT in 2004 (McElhany et al. 2004), the most current 

assessment of the White Salmon populations available at the time of plan development. 

The 2004 evaluation involved individual WLC TRT members ranking the VSP attributes 

based on best available information and professional judgment and providing an 

estimate of “data quality” based on their assessment of the overall amount of 

information available for each attribute. Overall population viability was determined 

using the WLC TRT’s formula for a weighted average of the VSP attributes (McElhany et 

al. 2004).

5.1.4 Differences in Status Assessment Methods

The population assessment methods used by Oregon, Washington, and White Salmon 

recovery planners were similar to each other and consistent with the approach outlined 

in McElhany et al. (2000), but they differed in specific application, such as selection of 

the baseline period and integration of VSP attribute scores to yield an overall population 

score (see Table 5-2). As a result, the status assessments in the different plans are not 

necessarily directly comparable. However, the actual results of the assessments are 

generally in agreement on the relatively poor status of most populations. This suggests 

that the fundamental similarities of the approaches outweigh their differences, which 

appear to have relatively little effect on overall conclusions about population status. 

NMFS’ view is that the status assessment methods used by the WLC TRT, McElhany et 

al. (2007), and the management unit plans all are scientifically sound, are based on the 

best information available, and provide a credible assessment of population status and a 

solid foundation for additional assessments and identification of initial recovery actions.

As described in more detail in Section 5.10, NMFS is required to complete reviews of the 

status of listed salmon and steelhead every 5 years. The most recent reviews, which were

completed in 2011, used the same VSP concept that the management unit planners used 

and reached conclusions about population status similar to those in the management 

unit plans (76 Federal Register 50448). As new methods for status assessment are 

developed and new and better data become available, NMFS will employ the improved 

techniques in future 5-year reviews and recovery plan updates. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-6

Table 5-2

Key Differences in Status Assessment Methodologies

Element Oregon Washington White Salmon

Baseline period Modeled baseline 

abundance assuming 

environmental conditions 

similar to those through

2006-2008

Used circa 1999 (i.e., ESA 

listing dates) as the baseline 

period

Used 2004 as the 

baseline period

Population 

score

Used weighted average of 

VSP attribute scores to 

determine population score

Used lowest VSP attribute

score to determine 

population score

Used weighted average 

of VSP attribute scores,* 

tempered by professional 

judgment

Uncertainty Expressed uncertainty 

graphically, using diamond 

shapes and reduced 

extinction risk thresholds to 

account for uncertainty

Stated that population score 

may be off by one or more 

points

Scored the quality of the 

data for each VSP 

attribute

* McElhany et al. (2004), which was the source of the status assessments for the White Salmon populations, 

used a slightly different list of VSP attributes than did the Oregon and Washington recovery planners—

namely, productivity, juvenile outmigrants, diversity, habitat, and spatial structure. The WLC TRT later 

refined the VSP parameters to abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity.

5.2 Target Status 

5.2.1 Recovery Scenario

Through an iterative process, management unit recovery planners collaborated to reach 

agreement on a target status for each population that either was consistent with the 

WLC TRT’s stratum and ESU/DPS viability criteria or that would contribute to 

comparable ESU/DPS risk levels. Where a population’s target status was inconsistent 

with the WLC TRT’s stratum or ESU/DPS criteria, the management unit plans 

documented the basis for the divergence. In this ESU-level recovery plan and the 

management unit plans, the target viability statuses are referred to collectively as the 

“recovery scenario” for the ESU or DPS (see Table 3-1 for the actual scenarios). Recovery 

planners also designated each population as “primary,” “contributing,” or “stabilizing” 

to reflect its expected level of contribution to recovery of the ESU or DPS (see Section 

3.1.3 for a description of these designations).

5.2.2 Conservation Gaps

The difference between a population’s baseline status and its target status reflects the 

magnitude of improvement needed to close the “conservation gap.” Oregon and 

Washington management unit recovery planners estimated the abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity improvements that would be necessary for 

each population to achieve its target status.3 They quantified gaps in abundance and 

 3 Washington management unit recovery planners quantified the conservation gap for the White Salmon 

populations as part of their conservation gap analysis (see LCFRB 2010a). The White Salmon management 

unit plan (NMFS 2013) does not include this gap analysis. Instead, the plan presents a baseline status for 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-7

productivity using the same stochastic population viability analysis models used to

estimate baseline risk status and treated gaps in spatial structure and diversity 

qualitatively because of a lack of rigorous quantitative analytical methods and criteria 

for these parameters.4 For more on information on how management unit recovery 

planners calculated population-specific conservation gaps in terms of the VSP 

parameters, see pp. 58 to 78 of ODFW (2010) and pp. 4-28 through 4-30 of 

LCFRB (2010a).

Although population-specific gap analyses are subject to a significant level of 

uncertainty that is difficult to quantify, management unit planners and NMFS consider 

the results of these analyses useful in conveying the order of magnitude of 

improvements that need to be addressed through recovery strategies and actions. 

Quantification of population-specific gaps in abundance and productivity is one area 

where Oregon and Washington recovery planners took slightly different approaches in 

their analyses. In calculating the abundance and productivity improvements needed to 

achieve each population’s target status, Oregon recovery planners built in two 

numerical “buffers”: one to account for expected future threats (i.e., climate change and 

human population growth in the region), and one to serve as a “safety factor,” to 

compensate for scientific uncertainty and possible measurement errors. In contrast, 

Washington recovery planners based their calculations of needed abundance and 

productivity improvements on known baseline conditions and expect to respond to

future threats and account for scientific uncertainty through adaptive management. 

A result of this difference in approach to future threats and scientific uncertainty is that 

the numerical estimates of abundance and productivity needed to fill the conservation

gaps for Oregon populations are bigger than those for corresponding gaps for the 

Washington populations. NMFS’ view is that this difference in approach is not 

significant because (1) management unit recovery planners did not do quantitative

modeling of the probable effects of recommended recovery actions, and (2) both states 

will rely on adaptive management as actions are implemented and conditions in the 

region change.

5.3 Limiting Factors and Threats

NMFS defines limiting factors as various biological, physical, or chemical conditions 

(such as high water temperatures) and the associated ecological processes and 

interactions that limit a species’ viability5; NMFS defines threats as human activities or 

natural events that cause or contribute to limiting factors. For example, the limiting 

factor of high water temperature could be caused by any number of threats, either alone 

 

each population (based on McElhany et al. 2004) and a target status for each population (based on LCFRB 

2010a). 

4 The Oregon management unit plan contains explicit targets for spatial structure and diversity; in the 

Washington management unit plan, spatial structure and diversity improvements are implicit in the 

abundance and productivity targets.

5 In this recovery plan, the term “limiting factors” is used to indicate the full range of factors that are 

believed to be impairing the viability of salmon and steelhead and not to indicate the single factor that is 

most limiting. Some NMFS scientists are now using the term “ecological concerns” instead of “limiting 

factors” to connote this full range of factors affecting viability.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-8

or in combination, such as warm water discharged to a stream, loss of bank vegetation 

that otherwise would shade the stream, low stream flow, or climate change. Threats can 

be caused by past or present actions or events. Understanding threats allows recovery 

planners to identify actions that will change the actual activities or events that cause a 

limiting factor, thus reducing the limiting factor itself.

The management unit recovery planners identified population-specific limiting factors 

and threats that are contributing to the threatened status of Lower Columbia River ESUs 

through review and synthesis of published and unpublished literature, supplemented 

by EDT modeling (for Washington populations) and professional judgment (for Oregon 

and White Salmon populations). Each management unit plan presents limiting factors 

for all populations within its planning area (see, for example, Table 5-1 of ODFW 2010), 

with impacts falling into six associated threat categories: tributary habitat, estuary 

habitat, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation (or ecological interactions, in 

the Washington management unit plan). The management unit plans describe limiting 

factors and threats in relation to the biological needs of the species and across the full 

spectrum of conditions that affect salmon and steelhead throughout their life cycle.

Because data linking limiting factors to specific effects on population risk status are 

generally lacking, each management unit plan presents the limiting factors as 

hypotheses to be tested through action implementation and monitoring of results, with 

adaptive management as needed.

Oregon recovery planners used a multi-step process to identify limiting factors and 

threats. Using available published and unpublished information and professional 

judgment, an expert panel developed an initial set of population-level limiting factors 

and threats by life stage (juvenile or adult) and categorized them as having either a key 

or secondary impact on population status.6 The Oregon recovery planning team and the 

Oregon Lower Columbia River stakeholder team then worked iteratively to review the

initial set of limiting factors and threats and modify them based on additional 

information and deliberation. For additional discussion of the expert panel process and 

detailed results for each population, see Chapter 5 of ODFW (2010). 

Washington recovery planners based their descriptions of limiting factors and threats on 

review and synthesis of published and unpublished literature for the listed species in the 

lower Columbia region. They also used Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) 

modeling to identify primary and secondary habitat limiting factors by juvenile and 

adult life stages at the population and stream reach scale. Detailed results of the EDT 

modeling are presented in Volume II of the LCFRB plan and are reflected in the 

population-level limiting factors reported in this ESU-level recovery plan (see Section 5.4 

and Appendix H). 

White Salmon recovery planners identified limiting factors and threats based on a 

substantial body of research, local field data and observations, and the opinions of 

regional experts (NMFS 2013).

 6 For discussion of the thresholds used to determine whether a factor was key or secondary, see Section 5.1.4 

of ODFW (2010).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-9

5.4 NMFS Limiting Factors Crosswalk 

Each of the management unit plans use somewhat different terms to describe limiting 

factors and threats, and in some cases, the plans characterize limiting factors and threats 

at different levels of specificity. To facilitate the use of a common parlance in discussing 

limiting factors in all salmon and steelhead recovery plans, the NMFS Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center developed a standardized set of limiting factors (also known as 

ecological concerns) that affect salmon and steelhead (Hamm 2012). NMFS refers to this

standardized list of limiting factors as a “data dictionary” and intends to use it to track 

and report on recovery plan limiting factors and actions regionwide. For this recovery 

plan, NMFS developed a set of limiting factor “crosswalk” tables that correlate each 

management unit plan’s population-specific limiting factor information with the terms 

used in the data dictionary. Appendixes G and H present the data dictionary and 

crosswalk tables, respectively.

The crosswalk tables indicate the limiting factors (i.e., the “ecological concerns” in the 

data dictionary) that affect each population, as well as the life stage affected, the degree 

of impact (primary or secondary), the location of the impact (in tributaries or in the 

Columbia River estuary and plume), and, in certain cases, whether there is uncertainty 

regarding the accuracy of the data. NMFS used the crosswalk tables in Appendix H to 

derive the summaries of stratum- and ESU-level limiting factors and threats in Chapters 

6 through 9 of this ESU recovery plan.

Appendix H explains the methodology that NMFS used to develop the limiting factor 

crosswalks. Briefly, the limiting factors identified in the Oregon management unit plan 

tracked quite readily to the subcategories of ecological concerns in the Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center data dictionary. For Washington populations, it was necessary 

for NMFS staff and an independent contractor to examine the EDT results, draw 

information from various parts of the Washington management unit plan, and confer 

with Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board staff and the board’s consultant to 

distinguish between primary and secondary limiting factors. 

5.5 Baseline Threat Impacts

Once management unit recovery planners had identified population-specific limiting 

factors, they estimated the baseline mortality impacts to each population caused by six 

categories of threats—tributary habitat, estuary habitat, hydropower, harvest, 

hatcheries, and predation (or ecological interactions, in the Washington management 

unit plan)—that also proved useful as an organizing construct for grouping limiting 

factors. Only potentially manageable impacts were considered. In estimating impacts, 

management unit recovery planners evaluated each threat category independently (i.e., 

impacts reflect the mortality of fish exposed to that particular category of threats, 

whether or not they are exposed to threats in the other categories). The estimates of 

baseline threat impacts have high levels of uncertainty and in many cases should be 

considered working hypotheses that are testable as part of recovery plan 

implementation. Despite this uncertainty, it is the expert judgment of NMFS and 

management unit scientists that, based on the best available information at this time, the 

baseline threat impacts provide a reasonable estimate of the relative magnitude of 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-10

different sources of anthropogenic mortality on each population and serve as an 

adequate basis for designing initial recovery actions. As more and better information is 

collected, it will be applied to recovery efforts in an adaptive management framework. 

Management unit recovery planners used the population-specific baseline threat 

impacts when (1) evaluating the effects of possible reductions in each threat category

(see Tables 6-6, 7-6, 7-8, 7-10, 8-4, and 9-7), and (2) scaling actions to achieve the target 

status for each population (see Section 5.7, “Recovery Strategies and Actions”). 

5.5.1 Oregon Approach to Quantifying Baseline Threat Impacts

Oregon recovery planners estimated the baseline impacts of threats as summarized 

below:

• Hydropower impacts: Estimated dam passage mortality among juveniles and 

adults based on estimates in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008f) or 

FERC relicensing documents, and in some cases professional judgment. Excluded 

non-passage impacts such as habitat blockage, habitat inundation, and flow 

modification in the Columbia River estuary.

• Harvest impacts: Calculated average fishery exploitation rates for a reference 

period that extends loosely from 1994 to 2004 (ODFW 2010 p. 72-74 and Table 4-8, 

p. 73). 

• Hatchery impacts: Estimated hatchery impacts as mortality resulting from the

reduced overall population productivity of natural-origin fish; assumed that 

mortality corresponds to the proportion of hatchery fish in natural spawning 

populations (except for Chinook salmon populations, where hatchery impact rates 

were assumed to be one-half the rates at which hatchery fish were found on 

natural spawning grounds; see pp. 156 to 158 of ODFW 2010). This approach 

reflects a concern for both the genetic and ecological effects of hatcheries and 

excludes the benefits of conservation hatchery programs.

• Predation impacts: Estimated overall predation rates based on information in the 

literature and then adjusted those rates downward to exclude non-anthropogenic 

predation.

• Estuary habitat impacts: Derived estimates of baseline mortality from estimates of 

total juvenile mortality in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for 

Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). Adjusted the module estimates downward 

assuming that 70 percent of subyearling migrant mortality and 35 percent of 

yearling migrant mortality in the estuary is anthropogenic. Further adjusted the 

estimates downward to subtract estimated mortality that is due to predation on 

juveniles. 

• Tributary habitat impacts: Estimated the baseline mortality associated with 

estuary habitat degradation, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation and 

assigned all remaining mortality (relative to the difference between the baseline 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-11

modeled abundance and estimated historical abundance) to tributary habitat 

impacts.

Throughout the Oregon management unit plan, ocean conditions were considered to be 

part of the environmental, variable baseline and thus not a discrete threat. However, the 

Oregon management unit plan notes that anthropogenic impacts in the ocean and other 

locations may be increasing, and that past assumptions about natural variability may 

not hold true in the future. Oregon recovery planners increased the size of the 

abundance and productivity gap by 20 percent in part to account for effects of future 

climate change, including changes in ocean conditions.

Oregon recovery planners did not quantify baseline and target threat impacts for chum 

salmon populations because data were inadequate to do so.

For more detailed information on how Oregon recovery planners estimated baseline 

threat impacts, see Section 6.2.1 of ODFW (2010).

5.5.2 Washington Approach to Quantifying Baseline Threat Impacts

Washington recovery planners estimated the baseline impact of threats as summarized 

below:

• Hydropower impacts: Estimated impacts from dam passage mortality, habitat loss 

caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas because of 

the presence of large, impassable tributary and mainstem dams; excluded indirect 

hydropower impacts. Inferred the production potential of inaccessible habitat 

from EDT results. Estimated mainstem hydropower impacts based on the Recovery 

Plan Module: Mainstem Columbia River Hydropower Projects (NMFS 2008a).

• Harvest impacts: Used baseline fishery impacts rates from a reference period in 

the late 1990s; rates included harvest and indirect mortality and generally reflected 

the maximum estimated impacts.

• Hatchery impacts: Estimated hatchery impacts as mortality resulting from reduced 

overall population productivity of natural-origin fish; assumed that mortality is a 

function of the proportion and productivity of hatchery-origin fish that are 

spawning naturally. Inferred estimates of the relative fitness of hatchery- and 

natural-origin spawners from Columbia River Hatchery Scientific Review Group 

(HSRG) analyses. Limited hatchery impacts to not more than 50 percent per 

population, in accordance with HSRG assessments of the potential for genetic 

effects. Excluded impacts from interactions between hatchery- and natural-origin 

fish and the beneficial impacts of conservation hatchery programs. 

• Ecological interactions: Estimated aggregate predation rates in the Columbia River 

mainstem and estuary by northern pikeminnow, marine mammals, Caspian terns, 

and cormorants, based on a combination of data, anecdotal information, and 

clearly articulated assumptions.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-12

• Estuary habitat impacts: Derived estimates of baseline mortality from estimates of 

total juvenile mortality in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for 

Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). Excluded predation mortality and assumed 

that manageable habitat mortality in the estuary was half of the non-predationrelated total mortality. 

• Tributary habitat impacts: Used EDT to derive estimates of the relative reduction 

in fish numbers resulting from changes in stream habitat conditions compared to a 

historical template. 

Washington recovery planners did not quantify the effects of ocean conditions and longterm climate changes because of uncertainty about the magnitude and timing of their 

effects. However, the effects of normal variability in ocean conditions on annual fish 

survival were accounted for in the models that were used to evaluate population-level 

abundance and productivity and to establish abundance and productivity goals and 

threat reduction targets. The Washington management unit plan intends to address 

potential future changes in ocean and climate effects through adaptive management, 

prioritization of habitat restoration and protection actions, and setting recovery goals 

higher than necessary to achieve delisting (see Section 5.9 of LCFRB 2010a). 

For more detailed information on how Washington recovery planners estimated baseline 

threat impacts, see Sections 3.7.2 through 3.7.4 of LCFRB (2010a).

5.5.3 White Salmon Approach to Quantifying Baseline Threat Impacts

The White Salmon management unit plan does not include an analysis of the baseline 

threat impacts. However, Washington recovery planners developed baseline threat 

impacts for the White Salmon populations to facilitate establishment of ESU-level 

recovery scenarios (see LCFRB 2010a). These threat impacts will be used to inform 

implementation and monitoring for the White Salmon management unit plan.

5.6 Threat Reduction Scenarios

Once management unit planners had quantified the baseline impacts of the six 

categories of threats (tributary habitat, estuary habitat, dams, harvest, hatcheries, and 

predation), they were able to evaluate the effects of possible reductions in each threat 

category. In this recovery plan, a given combination of threat reduction targets that 

would lead to a population achieving its target status is termed a threat reduction 

scenario. The scenario describes how much of a gain in population abundance and 

productivity is needed from recovery actions in each threat category to achieve a 

population’s target status. 

For each Oregon population, recovery planners developed and evaluated multiple 

threat reduction scenarios and then selected one. Washington recovery planners, on the 

other hand, developed a single threat reduction scenario for each population by 

assigning threat reduction targets to the six threat categories in proportion to the

baseline impacts of each category. The different management unit plan approaches to 

developing threat reduction scenarios and population-specific threat reduction targets 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-13

are summarized below. For more detail, see Section 4.5.2 of LCFRB (2010a) and Section 

6.2.1 of ODFW (2010).

5.6.1 Oregon’s Threat Reduction Scenarios

Oregon recovery planners evaluated how a number of different combinations of 

reductions in the six threat categories would affect each population’s persistence 

probability. Evaluating multiple combinations of threat reductions across the six 

categories allowed the planning team and stakeholders to examine the tradeoffs among 

the various threat reduction options. 

Oregon recovery planners evaluated the following threat reduction scenarios for each 

population: 

• 20 percent reduction in each threat category’s baseline rate

• Maximum harvest and hatchery (assumes essentially zero harvest, with a 

remaining 5 percent incidental impact rate, eliminating all LCR hatchery 

programs, and maintaining other threats at baseline levels)

• Maximum feasible reduction (assumes reductions in all threat categories that were 

considered feasible with current biological, social, political, and economic realities)

• Minimum tributary habitat (explores the minimum tributary habitat impact 

reduction required if reductions in other threat categories are maximized)

• Maintain into future (evaluates the threat reductions needed in each category to 

achieve a 20 percent increase in abundance to account for unknown future threats 

and maintain baseline risk status)

• Low extinction risk (evaluates the threat reductions needed to achieve low 

extinction risk, i.e., high persistence probability)

• Very low extinction risk (evaluates the threat reductions needed to achieve very 

low extinction risk, i.e., very high persistence probability) 

The first four scenarios evaluated the persistence probability that would result from 

reducing two or more threat categories a given amount; the last three scenarios 

evaluated the threat reductions necessary to achieve a specific persistence probability. 

Eventually, Oregon recovery planners selected a specific threat reduction scenario for 

each population based on factors such as feasibility, societal goals (including harvest 

opportunity, in some cases), and consistency with the WLC TRT’s viability criteria. In 

addition, for the selected threat reduction scenario, Oregon assigned a level of 

confidence of whether the reductions could be achieved. In some cases the confidence 

was low. For more information on how Oregon developed its threat reduction scenarios, 

see Section 6.2.1 of ODFW (2010).

Once Oregon recovery planners had selected a threat reduction scenario, they used a 

simple, independent, threat impact model to apportion the needed abundance and 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-14

productivity improvements (which had been calculated as part of the gap analysis)

across the six threat categories, in accordance with the selected scenario.

5.6.2 Washington’s Threat Reduction Scenarios and Interim Benchmarks

Washington recovery planners developed a single threat reduction scenario for each 

population, setting a target impact level for each threat category that reflects long-term 

future conditions when recovery objectives are achieved. To establish these threat 

reduction targets, planners distributed the needed abundance and productivity 

improvements across the threat categories in proportion to the baseline impacts of each 

category. This was a policy decision by the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board that 

will lead to each sector being responsible for reducing its impacts in proportion to its 

contribution to the total baseline impacts. Thus, sectors with small baseline impacts are

responsible for effecting a smaller reduction than sectors with large baseline impacts. 

Washington recovery planners calculated proportionate reductions in each threat 

category directly from the population productivity improvement targets identified in the 

conservation gap analysis. The resulting impact reduction targets provide guidance on 

the scale of threat-specific improvement that must be accomplished by threat-specific 

strategies and measures. 

The Washington management unit plan’s threat reduction targets do not explicitly 

consider the timing of recovery action implementation, or the potential lag time in the 

realization of benefits. Some threats respond quickly to actions aimed at reducing them, 

while others respond more slowly. For example, reductions in harvest translate into 

immediate increases in survival and abundance, while the benefits of hatchery and 

habitat measures typically take much longer to be realized. To address this problem and 

provide some immediate reductions in extinction risk (until the benefits of all recovery 

measures can be realized), the Washington management unit plan includes a schedule of 

interim threat reduction benchmarks that, for some threat categories, define relatively 

large reductions in impacts in the near term; specific values were determined based on a 

combination of biological benefits and implementation feasibility. The benchmarks also 

include a combination of action implementation, impact reduction, and biological 

improvement standards by which recovery plan implementation can be scheduled and 

evaluated. The interim benchmarks are presented in Tables 6-3, 6-4, 6-8, 6-11, and 6-14 of 

LCFRB (2010a). 

5.6.3 White Salmon Threat Reduction Scenarios

The White Salmon management unit plan does not include an analysis of the relative 

impact of baseline threat categories or the reductions needed in each threat category to 

reach recovery targets. However, Washington recovery planners developed threat 

reduction scenarios for the White Salmon populations to facilitate establishment of ESUlevel recovery scenarios (see LCFRB 2010a). With the removal of Condit Dam, these

threat reduction scenarios will need to be reevaluated as new information about 

conditions in the White Salmon subbasin becomes available.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-15

5.7 Recovery Strategies and Actions

The threat reduction targets provided a foundation from which management unit 

recovery planners could identify and scale recovery strategies and actions intended to 

reduce threats by the targeted amount in each category. The actions in the management 

unit plans address threats across the entire salmonid life cycle and include a balance of 

(1) actions intended to provide relatively immediate benefits, and (2) actions whose 

benefits are expected to be realized over a longer period of time. The management unit 

plans recommend both new activities and the continuation of existing programs that 

currently are benefiting Lower Columbia River ESUs (ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010a). 

Actions identified in the management unit plans are intended to reduce threats in each 

category consistent with the conservation gaps and threat reduction targets described in 

Sections 5.2.2 and 5.6.

The Oregon and Washington management unit plans emphasize that recovery success 

will require not just local action but combined effort at the state, regional, national, 

and—in the case of harvest and hydropower—international level (ODFW 2010, LCFRB 

2010a). Also, because there is a high degree of uncertainty about the biological response 

to actions and the level to which actions will need to be implemented to achieve the 

desired benefits, the plans consider proposed actions to some extent as hypotheses that 

will need to be tested. None of the management unit plans quantified the incremental 

benefit of any specific action; instead, actions were selected and scaled based on 

scientific judgment. (For a discussion of the sufficiency of recovery actions, see Section 

5.8) All three management unit plans stress that adaptive management will play a 

central role in the recovery process, with research, monitoring, and evaluation activities 

providing crucial information on the effects of individual actions and overall progress 

toward recovery goals (ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010a). (For more on research, monitoring, 

evaluation, and adaptive management, see Chapter 10.) Background information on 

recovery strategies and actions is presented in Section 5.1 of LCFRB (2010a) and 7.1 of 

ODFW (2010) and summarized below.

5.7.1 Oregon Approach to Developing Recovery Strategies and Actions

To develop recovery strategies and actions for Oregon populations, Oregon recovery

planners began with the limiting factors and threats identified for each population by 

life stage and location. They then developed 14 overarching recovery strategies to 

provide an ecological context for identifying recovery actions (see Table 7-1 of ODFW 

2010). Each strategy was associated with one or more of the six threat categories and was 

consistent with goals of biological diversity, ecological integrity, and ecological health 

(ODFW 2010).

Next, recovery planners developed recovery actions. The Oregon Lower Columbia River 

stakeholder team, which included state and federal agency staff and representatives of 

agricultural, commercial, conservation, recreational, forestry, and fishing interests, 

reviewed the recovery actions and provided additional input. The Oregon management 

unit plan includes actions that address all key or secondary limiting factors. For some 

habitat actions, Oregon recovery planners identified specific locations for 

implementation, using reach-scale assessments, other action plans, and professional 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-16

judgment; for some locations, they identified a need for completion of reach-scale 

assessments so that recovery actions could be targeted to where they are most needed. 

Recovery actions in the Oregon management unit plan are organized by species and 

population (see Tables 7-3B, 7-3C, 7-3D, and 7-3E of ODFW 2010), with specific locations 

noted separately (see Table 9-3 of ODFW 2010). The threat category that each action 

addresses is indicated. The plan also identifies actions that address threats common to 

all Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations (see Table 7-3A of ODFW 

2010) and actions that apply to a single ESU or run component at multiple locations. 

The Oregon management unit plan recommends that priority be given to recovery 

actions that do the following:

• Benefit populations that must achieve high persistence probability

• Address a key limiting factor or large conservation gap

• Will protect or result in accessible and connected high-quality habitat

• Are in locations with high intrinsic potential7

• Protect threatened high-quality or highly productive habitat

• Provide resiliency against climate change 

In addition, Oregon recovery planners suggested funding strategies and recommended 

quick action for populations targeted for high persistence probability, especially in the 

case of tributary habitat actions (ODFW 2010).

5.7.2 Washington Approach to Developing Recovery Strategies and Actions

Washington recovery planners developed an integrated regional strategy for recovery, a 

series of threat-specific strategies and measures, and corresponding working hypotheses 

regarding the facts and assumptions that the strategies and measures are based on. 

Measures provide initial recovery guidance. Some apply generally to most Lower 

Columbia River ESUs; others apply to a single species. Measures are categorized based 

on whether they are existing or new activities and whether they provide primarily 

protection or restoration benefits (LCFRB 2010a).

To develop the regional strategies and measures, Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 

staff conducted meetings and workshops attended by representatives from affected 

entities and implementing agencies. The strategies and measures are based on a 

combination of expected biological results and economic, political, social, and cultural 

considerations, with the expectation that they will be refined during implementation. 

Habitat protection and restoration actions targeted to specific stream reaches are 

identified in a series of subbasin chapters that constitute Volume II of the Washington 

 7 Analyses based on the relationship between certain landscape features (e.g., channel gradients or geology) 

and species’ habitat preferences can form the basis of a consistent approach to evaluating habitat potential to 

support a particular species. These analyses can inform species conservation and habitat restoration 

activities. Intrinsic potential models use geospatial data to identify stream reaches with high, low, or no 

potential to host a particular species. The models rate habitat potential at the level of a stream reach but 

provide a method for estimating habitat quantity and quality across local or regional scales.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-17

management unit plan (LCFRB 2010a). Washington recovery planners prioritized these 

actions based on subbasin and stream reach fish production values and habitat limiting 

factors in all current and historical anadromous production areas. This prioritization 

considered the needs of the multiple populations within each subbasin. Geographically 

specific management actions for tributary habitat were developed using EDT and a 

geographical information system (GIS)-based tool known as the Integrated Watershed 

Assessment (IWA), which is used to assess stream habitat conditions and watershed 

process impairments at the subwatershed scale (3,000 to 12,000 acres). For further 

descriptions of the EDT and IWA analyses, see Chapter 7 and Appendix E of LCFRB 

(2010a). 

5.7.3 White Salmon Approach to Developing Recovery Strategies and Actions

Recovery strategies and actions in the White Salmon management unit plan fall into two 

categories: (1) those aimed at reintroducing naturally produced salmon and steelhead 

into historical habitat after the removal of Condit Dam and (2) those aimed at improving 

and increasing freshwater habitat for salmon and steelhead production in key reaches 

(NMFS 2013). Actions for reintroduction were developed by the White Salmon Working 

Group, which consisted of federal, state, and tribal fisheries managers and 

representatives of PacifiCorp (the operator of Condit Dam). For each ESU, the group 

developed and evaluated a number of reintroduction options and proposed one for 

implementation. Options are described in more detail in Section 6.1 and Appendix 1 of 

the White Salmon management unit plan (NMFS 2013).

As part of the White Salmon recovery planning process, NMFS worked with the White 

Salmon Working Group to review and analyze available information and define 

freshwater habitat strategies, actions, and priority reaches (NMFS 2013). The habitat 

strategies and actions include gathering additional information to use in prioritizing

actions, protecting existing ecological processes and functioning habitats, restoring 

vegetation along stream reaches that exceed state standards for water temperature, 

restoring habitat in the reservoir footprint now that Condit Dam has been removed,8 and 

improving habitat in upriver reaches in preparation for the time when reintroduced 

populations exceed the carrying capacity of the existing habitat.

The White Salmon management unit plan also briefly discusses hatchery, harvest, and

hydropower-related strategies and actions (NMFS 2013). 

5.8 Analysis of Actions

A question relevant to recovery planning is the level of effort that will be required to 

close the gap between baseline and target population status, and whether the actions 

identified in the recovery plan are sufficient to attain target status for each population. 

Because any analysis of such questions involves significant uncertainty, it is essential for 

any recovery plan to link hypotheses regarding level of effort and sufficiency of actions 

to rigorous research, monitoring, and adaptive management programs.

 8 Condit Dam was breached in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-18

Management unit recovery planners addressed the question of the level of effort needed 

to close conservation gaps by identifying threat reduction targets in each major threat

category. They addressed the question regarding sufficiency of actions through varying 

levels of analysis, depending on threat category, and by taking what the Washington 

management unit plan termed a “directional approach.” The directional approach is 

based on the hypotheses that (1) the set of actions in this plan is sufficient to establish a 

trajectory toward recovery, (2) mechanistic analyses of the effects of actions are too 

uncertain to provide adequate confidence that any initial set of actions will be sufficient,

and (3) modifications and refinements will be made as necessary within an adaptive 

management framework.

As described in the sections above, Oregon and Washington management unit planners 

did the following:

1. Quantified the abundance and productivity improvements—and in some cases the 

spatial structure and diversity improvements—needed for each population to 

move from its baseline persistence probability to its target persistence probability.

2. Quantified the baseline impact on population abundance and productivity for 

each of six major threat categories.

3. Quantified the amount by which each major threat impact would need to be 

reduced to close the gap between baseline and target status for each population.

4. Identified strategies and actions in each threat category that are intended to reduce 

the impact of each threat and improve abundance and productivity by the amount 

consistent with the target for each population.

Although the management unit planners hypothesized that actions would be sufficient 

to achieve the targeted threat reductions, the level of analysis carried out to confirm this 

varied by plan and by threat category. The different approaches in the Washington and 

Oregon management unit plans make it difficult to generalize; however, in general, the 

plans provide relatively detailed quantitative documentation for the expected benefits of 

harvest and hydropower actions. The potential benefits of hatchery, tributary habitat, 

and estuary habitat actions are assessed systematically but rely more heavily on 

extrapolations and general assumptions. In some cases, analysis of the sufficiency of 

actions in the management unit plans is based on professional judgment. 

In addition, as part of developing recovery action cost estimates for habitat actions, 

Washington and Oregon management unit planners developed rough estimates of the 

number of stream miles that would need to be restored to achieve the habitat 

improvements targeted in the plans. (In Washington, estimates were for the number of 

stream miles that would need to be restored in each subbasin, while in Oregon the 

estimates were species-specific at the population scale; in both cases these estimates 

were rough and based on multiple assumptions.) 

The management unit plans also incorporated monitoring and evaluation programs and 

an adaptive management framework for implementation to allow us to evaluate 

whether we are on course and to adjust as needed. This basic approach is useful in 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-19

understanding the scale of actions that need to be implemented and in laying the 

groundwork for understanding and evaluating whether the actions have been effective.

The Washington management unit plan incorporates explicit interim benchmarks, 

defined as “reference points for planning and evaluating recovery progress over the 

duration of plan implementation,” for action implementation, action effectiveness, and 

status improvements (see LCFRB 2010a, Section 6.1). The interim benchmarks provided 

in the Washington management unit plan reflect the incremental implementation 

strategies described in the plan and explicitly recognize the range in expected response 

times associated with different actions (e.g., adjustments to harvest rates versus 

restoring riparian habitats). The interim benchmarks are at 12-year intervals, 

corresponding to the adaptive management schedule called for in the plan (see LCFRB 

2010a, Chapter 10).

The Oregon management unit plan (ODFW 2010) recognizes the importance of periodic 

assessments of plan performance, although it does not explicitly establish benchmarks 

equivalent to those in the Washington management unit plan. The adaptive 

management section of the Oregon management unit plan identifies the need for specific 

reviews of population status and plan performance at 5-year intervals and recognizes 

that such reviews would serve as the basis for considering major revisions to the plan on 

a 12-year cycle (see ODFW 2010, Chapter 9). Although the Oregon management unit 

plan does not include specific benchmarks, it does provide some general guidance on 

the expected timing of particular actions (including high-priority research, monitoring, 

and evaluation efforts) (see ODFW 2010, Section 9.3). This guidance includes specific 

time frames for full implementation of individual actions (see Table 9-3) and some 

general guidance on assessing implementation progress for tributary habitat actions 

(“Note that if the quantity of restoration action indicated in Table 9-2 is divided by the 

implementation schedule for that action in Section 9.1.3, an annual rate of restoration 

can be calculated. This can be compared to reported restoration projects and progress 

toward these habitat recovery action goals can be tracked”).

5.9 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

Strategic research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) programs that are designed to 

inform key questions and critical uncertainties and to feed information into an adaptive 

management framework are key components of salmon and steelhead recovery plans. 

The management unit plans contain or will contain specific RME plans for their areas.

(See Chapter 8 of ODFW 2010 and Chapter 9 of LCFRB 2010a.) These RME plans are 

based on regional guidance for adaptive management and RME and will guide recovery 

planning RME efforts and funding in their respective areas, within a context of ongoing 

regional guidance and coordination. Chapter 10 of this plan describes RME in more 

detail. 

As Chapter 10 also describes, a number of regional entities, including NMFS, are 

involved in research, monitoring, and evaluation for salmon and steelhead recovery. 

One component of the RME system for recovery planning is the NMFS 5-year reviews, 

which are described briefly below because of their relevance to the baseline population

status completed by the management unit planners. The NMFS 5-year reviews are 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

5-20

5.10 NMFS 2011 5-Year Reviews

Because the management unit plans evaluated baseline status several years ago, when 

the plans were in development, it is reasonable to ask whether the status of any 

population has changed since those assessments. Under ESA section 4(c)(2)(B), NMFS is 

required to conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Based on such 

reviews, NMFS determines whether any species should be removed from the list (i.e., 

delisted) or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to 

endangered. During these reviews, NMFS considers the best scientific and commercial 

data available. In 2011, NMFS published a 5-year review covering the period 2005-2010 

that included review of the four species addressed by this recovery plan (76 Federal 

Register 50448). In the 2011 5-year review, NMFS generally relied on information 

through 2008 or 2009. Evaluation methods and information on species’ status will 

continue to evolve and be updated over time. NMFS’ next 5-year review will provide 

updated summaries of species’ status based on best available information.

For the 2011 review, the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center collected and 

analyzed new information about ESU and DPS viability, using the viable salmonid 

population concept developed by McElhany et al. (2000) (Ford 2011). NMFS Northwest 

Region salmon management biologists also reviewed the status of the ESA section

4(a)(1) listing factors (NMFS 2011b). 

The updated 5-year review indicates that, although a number of populations in each 

ESU or DPS have high or medium persistence probability, not a single stratum in any of 

the ESUs or DPS is currently viable. Multiple populations in each stratum of each ESU or 

DPS will need improved status to meet the recovery criteria. Although little 

improvement in ESU or DPS viability has been observed over the last 5 years, there is 

also no new information to indicate that the extinction risk has increased. In addition, 

NMFS’ analysis of ESA section 4(a)(1) factors indicates that the collective risk to the 

persistence of the Lower Columbia River Chinook, coho, and steelhead and Columbia 

River chum has not changed significantly since NMFS’ final listing determination in 

2006. The 2011 review emphasizes the importance of continuing to implement recovery 

actions that address the factors limiting population viability, as well as the importance of 

monitoring the effects of the actions over time.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-1

6. Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

6.1 Coho Salmon Biological Background

6.1.1 Coho Salmon Life History and Habitat

Lower Columbia River coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) are typically categorized into 

early- and late-returning stocks. Early-returning (Type S) adult coho salmon enter the 

Columbia River in mid-August and begin entering tributaries in early September, with 

peak spawning from mid-October to early November. Late-returning (Type N) coho 

salmon pass through the lower Columbia from late September through December and 

enter tributaries from October through January. Most spawning occurs from November 

to January, but some occurs as late as March (see Figure 6-1) (LCFRB 2010a). Migration 

and spawning timing of specific local populations may be mediated by factors such as 

latitude, migration distance, flows, water temperature, maturity, or migration obstacles 

(ODFW 2010). For example, coho salmon spawning in warmer tributaries spawn later 

than those spawning in colder tributaries (LCFRB 2010a). 

Historically, coho salmon spawned in almost every accessible stream system in the 

lower Columbia River (LCFRB 2010a). Coho salmon generally occupy intermediate 

positions in tributaries, typically further upstream than chum or fall-run Chinook, but 

often downstream of steelhead or spring-run Chinook (ODFW 2010). Early-run fish 

usually spawn farther upstream within a basin than late-run fish. Coho salmon typically 

spawn in small to medium, low- to-moderate elevation streams from valley bottoms to 

stream headwaters. Coho salmon particularly favor small, rain-driven, lower elevation 

streams characterized by relatively low flows during late summer and early fall, and 

increased river flows and decreased water temperatures in winter (LCFRB 2010a). On 

their return, adult fish often mill near the river mouths or in lower river pools until the 

first fall freshets occur (LCFRB 2010a).

Coho salmon construct redds in gravel and small cobble substrate in pool tailouts, 

riffles, and glides, with sufficient flow depth for spawning activity (NMFS 2013). Eggs 

incubate over late fall and winter for about 45 to 140 days, depending on water 

temperature, with longer incubation in colder water. Fry may thus emerge from early 

spring to early summer (ODFW 2010). Hatching success depends on clean gravel that is 

not choked with sediment or subject to extensive scouring by floods (LCFRB 2010a). 

Juveniles typically rear in freshwater for more than a year. After emergence, coho 

salmon fry move to shallow, low-velocity rearing areas, primarily along the stream 

edges and inside channels. Juvenile coho salmon favor pool habitat and often congregate 

in quiet backwaters, side channels, and small creeks with riparian cover and woody 

debris. Side-channel rearing areas are particularly critical for overwinter survival, which 

is a key regulator of freshwater productivity (LCFRB 2010a). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-2

Figure 6-1. Life Cycle of Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon

(Source: LCFRB 2010a)

The key freshwater habitat needs of Lower Columbia River coho salmon at different life 

stages are shown in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1

Key Habitat for Coho Salmon, by Life Stage 

Life Stage Key Habitat Descriptions

Spawning Riffles, tailouts, and the swifter areas in glides containing a mixture of gravel 

and cobble sizes with flow of sufficient depth for spawning activity

Incubation As for spawning, but with sufficient flow for egg and alevin development and 

protection from high flow scour

Fry Colonization

Shallow, slow-velocity areas within the stream channel, including backwater 

areas, often associated with stream margins and back eddies and usually in 

relatively low-gradient reaches

Active Rearing

Relatively slow-water habitat types, often near velocity shears, often 

associated with relatively low-gradient stream channel reaches, including 

primary pools, backwaters, tailouts, glides, and beaver ponds

Inactive Rearing Non-turbulent habitat types, particularly deeper water types within the main 

channel, but also including slower portions of large cobble riffles

Migrant All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of juvenile migrants 

and adequate structure for protection from predators

Pre-Spawning Migrant All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of sexually mature 

adult migrants

Pre-Spawning Holding Relatively slow, deep-water habitat types typically associated with (or 

immediately adjacent to) the main channel

Source: Adapted from Northwest Power and Conservation Council (2004b) and McElhany (2010).

Most juvenile coho salmon migrate seaward as smolts in April to June, typically during 

their second year. Salmon that have stream-type life histories, such as coho, typically do 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-3

not linger for extended periods in the Columbia River estuary, but the estuary is a 

critical habitat used for feeding during the physiological adjustment to salt water. 

Juvenile coho salmon are present in the Columbia River estuary from March to August 

(LCFRB 2010a).

Columbia River coho salmon typically range throughout the nearshore ocean over the 

continental shelf off of the Oregon and Washington coasts. Early-returning (Type S) 

coho salmon are typically found in ocean waters south of the Columbia River mouth. 

Late-returning (Type N) coho salmon are typically found in ocean waters north of the 

Columbia River mouth (LCFRB 2010a). Coho salmon grow relatively quickly in the 

ocean, reaching up to 6 kilograms after about 16 months of ocean rearing (ODFW 2010). 

Most coho salmon sexually mature at age three, except for a small percentage of males 

(called “jacks”) who return to natal waters at age two, after only 5 to 7 months in the 

ocean (LCFRB 2010a). All coho salmon die after spawning. Weather-related upwelling 

patterns in the ocean and the short 3-year life cycle of this species cause highly variable 

population cycles (LCFRB 2010a).

6.1.2 Historical Distribution and Population Structure of LCR Coho Salmon

The Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU historically consisted of a total of 24 

independent populations (see Table 6-2). Because NMFS had not yet listed the ESU in 

2003 when the WLC TRT designated core and genetic legacy populations for other ESUs, 

there are no such designations for Lower Columbia River coho salmon. However, the 

Clackamas and Sandy subbasins contain the only populations in the ESU that have clear 

records of continuous natural spawning (McElhany et al. 2007). Figure 6-2 shows the 

historical geographical distribution of Lower Columbia River coho salmon strata and 

populations.1

 1 Willamette Falls, on the Willamette River at Oregon City, Oregon, marked the historical upstream extent of 

coho salmon in the Willamette River. Coho salmon now spawn above Willamette Falls because a fish ladder 

constructed there in the late-nineteenth century allows them to pass the falls in low flow conditions that 

would have prevented their passage historically and because hatchery coho salmon were introduced above 

the falls. In its 2005 listing decision, NMFS noted that coho salmon spawning above Willamette Falls were 

not considered part of the Lower Columbia River coho ESU (70 Federal Register 37160). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-4

Table 6-2

Historical LCR Coho Salmon Populations

Stratum Historical Populations Early or Late Stock*

Coast Youngs Bay (OR) Late

Grays/Chinook (WA) Late

Big Creek (OR) Late

Elochoman/Skamokawa (WA) Late

Clatskanie (OR) Late

Mill/Abernathy/Germany (WA) Late

Scappoose (OR) Late

Cascade Lower Cowlitz (WA) Late

Upper Cowlitz (WA) Early, late

Cispus (WA) Early, late

Tilton (WA) Early, late

SF Toutle (WA) Early, late

NF Toutle NF (WA) Early, late

Coweeman (WA) Late

Kalama (WA) Late

NF Lewis (WA) Early, late

EF Lewis (WA) Early, late

Salmon Creek (WA) Late

Clackamas (OR) Early, late

Sandy (OR) Early, late

Washougal (WA) Late

Gorge Lower Gorge (WA & OR) Late

Upper Gorge/White Salmon (WA) Late

Upper Gorge/Hood (OR) Early

* This represents the WLC TRT’s understanding of the historical run timing for Lower Columbia River coho 

salmon (i.e., 10 early stocks and 23 late stocks).

Source: Myers et al. (2006).

Up through 2008, 25 artificial propagation programs produced coho salmon considered 

to be part of this ESU. In 2009, the Elochoman Type-S and Type-N programs were 

discontinued. In 2011, NMFS recommended that these two programs be removed from 

the ESU (76 Federal Register 50448, Jones 2011). Table 6-3 shows the 23 coho salmon 

hatchery programs that currently are included in the ESU. For a list of coho salmon 

hatchery programs not included in the ESU, see Jones (2011). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-5

Table 6-3

Artificial Propagation Programs Included in the LCR Coho Salmon ESU*

Washington Programs Oregon Programs

Grays River

Sea Resources Hatchery

Peterson Project

Cathlamet High School FFA Type N

Cowlitz Type N - Upper Cowlitz

Cowlitz Type N -Lower Cowlitz

Cowlitz Game and Anglers Program

Friends of the Cowlitz Program

North Fork Toutle River Hatchery

Kalama River Type S 

Kalama River Type N

Lewis River Type S 

Lewis River Type N

Washougal Type N

Fish First Wild Coho Salmon

Fish First Type N

Syverson Project Type N

Big Creek Hatchery

Astoria High School (STEP)

Warrenton High School (STEP)

Eagle Creek National Fish Hatchery

Sandy Hatchery

Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow complex

* Hatchery programs that are listed as Type S or Type N in this table but that do not correspond to the run 

timings in Table 6-2 likely will be reevaluated for inclusion/exclusion in the ESU at some point in the future.

Source: 70 Federal Register 37178, 76 Federal Register 50448, and Jones (2011).

6.2 Baseline Population Status of LCR Coho Salmon

Out of the 24 populations that make up this ESU, 21 are considered to have a very low 

probability of persisting for the next 100 years (see Figure 6-2), and none is considered 

viable (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010, Ford 2011).2 All three strata in the ESU fall 

significantly short of the WLC TRT criteria for viability. 

The very low persistence probability for most Lower Columbia River coho salmon 

populations is related to low abundance and productivity, loss of spatial structure, and 

reduced diversity. Although poor data quality prevents precise quantification, most 

populations are believed to have very low abundance of natural-origin spawners (50 fish 

or fewer, compared to historical abundances of thousands or tens of thousands); data 

 2 As described in Section 2.6, the WLC TRT recommended methods for evaluating the status of Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. The TRT approach is based on evaluating the 

population parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity and then integrating 

those assessments into an overall assessment of population persistence probability. As also described in 

Section 5.1, management unit recovery planners evaluated their respective populations’ baseline status in a 

manner generally consistent with the WLC TRT’s approach, with the baseline period being circa 1999 (for 

Washington populations) or 2006-2008 (for Oregon populations). Unless otherwise noted, NMFS and the 

management unit planners believe that those assessments accurately reflect the status of the population at 

that time; the assessments are the basis for the summaries presented here and are consistent with the 

conclusions of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in its Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and 

Steelhead Listed under the Endangered Species Act (Ford 2011). New information on population status will 

continue to accumulate over time and will be taken into account as needed to reflect the best available 

science regarding a population’s status.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-6

quality has been poor because of inadequate spawning surveys and, until recently, the 

presence of unmarked hatchery-origin spawners. 3 The spatial structure of some 

populations is constrained by migration barriers (such as tributary dams) and 

development in lowland areas. Low abundance, past stock transfers, other legacy 

hatchery effects, and ongoing hatchery straying may have reduced genetic diversity 

within and among coho salmon populations (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). It is likely that 

hatchery effects have also decreased population productivity. 

Only in the Clackamas and Sandy subbasins is there a clear record of continuous natural 

spawning from the 1990s to the present. Spawner abundance for both these populations 

is, however, still well below long-term minimum abundance thresholds, although there 

was a generally positive trend from the 1990s through 2005 (Ford 2011). More recent 

spawning surveys indicate short-term increases in natural production in the Clatskanie,

Scappoose, and Mill/Abernathy/Germany populations (ODFW 2010, Ford 2011).

Although McElhany et al. (2007) and ODFW (2010) reached the same conclusions about 

the persistence probability of most Oregon coho salmon populations, conclusions for 

three Oregon populations (the Scappoose, Clackamas, and Sandy) did change as a result 

of considering additional years of data and adjusting the risk models used by Oregon in 

the assessments (ODFW 2010).4

The generally poor baseline population status of coho salmon reflects long-term trends: 

natural-origin coho salmon in the Columbia Basin have been in decline for the last 50 

years (ODFW 2010).5 For additional discussion of Lower Columbia River coho salmon 

population status, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, pp. 6-44 through 6-47; 

ODFW 2010, Chapter 4; and NMFS 2013, p. 4-2) and Ford (2011).

 3 Since 1997, all Lower Columbia River hatchery coho salmon have been marked, and both Oregon and 

Washington have begun efforts to identify and address data gaps for coho salmon. Unmarked, out-of-ESU 

coho salmon released in the Klickitat subbasin may stray into the Hood subbasin; these fish are expected to 

be marked in the near future. 

4 It is particularly notable that the Sandy coho salmon population was assigned a higher risk rating for 

abundance and productivity in the ODFW (2010) assessment than in the McElhany et al. (2007) assessment; 

however, although the abundance and productivity risk category changed, the relative gap between current 

abundance and target abundance did not change appreciatively. 

5 Coho populations upstream of Hood River have been extirpated (ODFW 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-7

Figure 6-2. Baseline Status of Historical LCR Coho Salmon Populations 

6.3 Target Status and Conservation Gaps for Coho Salmon 

Populations

Table 6-4 shows the baseline and target status for each Lower Columbia River coho 

salmon population, along with historical and target abundance. Local recovery planners 

coordinated with NMFS in making decisions about the target status for each population, 

taking into consideration opportunities for improvement in view of historical 

production, current habitat conditions and potential, and the desire to accommodate 

objectives such as maintaining harvest opportunities. (Note: the target statuses in 

Table 6-4 are the same as the persistence probabilities in the recovery scenario presented 

in Table 3-1 in Section 3.1.3.) As described in Section 5.1.4, although Oregon and 

Washington recovery planners used somewhat different methodologies to estimate 

baseline status and target abundance and productivity, NMFS and the management unit 

planners agree that the methodologies led to similar conclusions regarding the very low 

baseline status for most Lower Columbia River coho salmon populations.

Very large improvements are needed in the persistence probability of most coho salmon 

populations if the ESU is to achieve recovery. For example, 16 of the 24 historical 

populations are targeted for high or very high persistence probability. Of these, 14 have 

a low or very low baseline persistence probability. Some level of recovery effort will be 

needed for every population—even stabilizing populations that are expected to remain 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-8

at their baseline status—to arrest or reverse long-tem declining trends. For most 

populations, meeting recovery objectives will require improvement in all VSP 

parameters: abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. 

In the Coast stratum, four of seven populations are targeted for high or very high 

persistence probability. Two populations—Youngs Bay and Big Creek—are not targeted 

for improvements in their baseline persistence probability of very low. This decision 

represents a strategic choice to provide harvest opportunity through terminal fisheries 

targeting hatchery fish in these subbasins; consequently, the proportion of hatcheryorigin spawners (pHOS) in these two populations is expected to remain high. 

Of fourteen populations in the Cascade stratum, nine are targeted for high or very high 

persistence probability. The Kalama and Washougal populations are designated as 

contributing, in part so that fishery enhancement hatchery programs in those subbasins 

can continue to support harvest. The North Fork Lewis population is designated as 

contributing in part because of uncertainties regarding the success of reestablishing 

natural production above tributary dams. Two populations—Salmon Creek and the 

Tilton—are not targeted for improvements in their baseline persistence probability of 

very low. The Salmon Creek subbasin is highly urbanized. In the Tilton subbasin, habitat 

is of lower quality than in the Upper Cowlitz and Cispus subbasins.

All three of the Gorge stratum populations are targeted to move from very low to high 

persistence probability. However, the Oregon management unit plan notes that the 

feasibility of meeting abundance and productivity targets for the Upper Gorge/Hood 

River population (see Table 6-4) is very low. Challenges include the small amount of 

historical and current habitat (and thus the limited options for restoration); 

anthropogenic impacts that are unlikely to change in the near future (e.g., inundation of 

historical spawning habitat by Bonneville Reservoir and roads that restrict access to 

habitat); high uncertainty in the data and analyses for small populations6; and the 

possibly inaccurate designation of population structure for this stratum. The Oregon 

management unit plan states that most of these issues are related to the population 

structure designation and suggests re-evaluating the Gorge stratum population 

structure for all species (ODFW 2010). As discussed in Section 3.2.1, NMFS agrees that 

such an evaluation is needed. 

If the scenario in Table 6-4 were achieved, it would exceed the WLC TRT’s viability 

criteria, particularly in the Cascade stratum.7 Exceeding the criteria in the Cascade 

stratum was intentional on the part of local recovery planners to compensate for 

uncertainties about the feasibility of meeting the WLC TRT’s criteria in the Gorge 

stratum, in particular the questions raised by Oregon recovery planners about the 

 6 In the method used by the WLC TRT and management unit planners to establish abundance goals, target 

abundance is based to some extent on the gap between current and historical abundance. If the historical 

abundance of the Upper Gorge/Hood coho population has been significantly overestimated, then the 

abundance needed to achieve its target status may also be overestimated (ODFW 2010). 

7 As discussed in Section 2.5.4, the TRT’s criteria for high probability of stratum persistence require that two 

or more populations be viable and that, using the WLC TRT’s scoring system, the average score for all 

populations in the stratum be 2.25 or higher. In the Cascade stratum, nine populations are targeted for high 

or very high persistence probability, and, using the WLC TRT’s scoring system, the average score for all 

populations in the stratum would be 2.39. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-9

feasibility of meeting the target status for the Upper Gorge/Hood population. (Delisting 

criteria for the Lower Columbia River coho ESU are described in Sections 3.2 and 6.7)

Figure 6-3 displays the population-level conservation gaps for Lower Columbia River 

coho salmon graphically. The conservation gap reflects the magnitude of improvement 

needed to move a population from its baseline status to the target status. For additional 

discussion of targets and conservation gaps for Lower Columbia River coho salmon 

populations, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, pp. 6-44 to 6-48; ODFW 

2010, pp. 148, 169 to 177; and NMFS 2013, p. 3-12).

Figure 6-3. Conservation Gaps for LCR Coho Salmon Populations: Difference between Baseline 

and Target Status

Source: LCFRB 2010a.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-10

Table 6-4

Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR Coho Salmon Populations

Baseline Persistence

Probability8 Abundance

Stratum Population Contribution A&P S D Net

Target 

Persistence 

Probability

Historical Baseline9 Target

Coast Youngs Bay (OR) Stabilizing VL VH VL VL VL 18,588 4 7

Grays/Chinook (WA) Primary VL H VL VL H 3,800 < 50 2,400

Big Creek (OR) Stabilizing VL H L VL VL 10,830 8 12

Elochoman/Skamokawa (WA) Primary VL H VL VL H 6,500 < 50 2,400

Clatskanie (OR) Primary L VH M L VH 16,781 1,363 3,201

Mill/Abernathy/Germany (WA) Contributing VL H L VL M 2,800 < 50 1,800

Scappoose (OR) Primary M H M M VH 22,164 1,942 3,208

Cascade Lower Cowlitz (WA) Primary VL M M VL H 18,000 500 3,700

Upper Cowlitz (WA) Primary VL M L VL H 18,000 < 50 2,000

Cispus (WA) Primary VL M L VL H 8,000 < 50 2,000

Tilton (WA) Stabilizing VL M L VL VL 5,600 < 50 --

SF Toutle (WA) Primary VL H M VL H < 50 1,900

NF Toutle (WA) Primary VL M L VL H 27,000 < 50 1,900

Coweeman (WA) Primary VL H M VL H 5,000 < 50 1,200

Kalama (WA) Contributing VL H L VL L 800 < 50 500

NF Lewis (WA) Contributing VL L L VL L 40,000 200 500

EF Lewis (WA) Primary VL H M VL H 3,000 < 50 2,000

Salmon Creek (WA) Stabilizing VL M VL VL VL -- 10 < 50 --

 8 A&P = Abundance and productivity, S = spatial structure, and D = genetic and life history diversity. Net = overall persistence probability of the population. VL = 

very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high, VH = very high.

9 Baseline abundance was estimated as described in Section 5.1 and does not equal observed natural-origin spawner counts. The baseline is a modeled abundance 

that represents 100-year forward projections under conditions representative of a recent baseline period using a population viability analysis that is functionally 

equivalent to the risk analyses in McElhany et al. (2007). Projections generally assume conditions similar to those from 1974 to 2004. Oregon numbers reflect 

fishery reductions between the 1990s and about 2004, while Washington numbers reflect fishery impacts prevalent circa 1999.

10 “—“ indicates that no data are available from which to make a quantitative assessment.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-11

Table 6-4

Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR Coho Salmon Populations

Baseline Persistence

Probability8 Abundance

Stratum Population Contribution A&P S D Net

Target 

Persistence 

Probability

Historical Baseline9 Target

Clackamas (OR) Primary M VH H M VH 52,565 6,548 11,232

Sandy (OR) Primary VL H M VL H 19,647 1,622 5,685

Washougal (WA) Contributing VL H L VL M+ 3,000 < 50 1,500

Gorge Lower Gorge (WA & OR) Primary VL M VL VL H -- < 50 1,900

Upper Gorge/White Salmon (WA) Primary VL M VL VL H -- < 50 1,900

Upper Gorge/Hood (OR) Primary VL VH L VL H* 8,846 41 5,162

*Oregon’s analysis indicates a low probability of meeting the delisting objective of high persistence probability for this population.

Source: LCFRB (2010a) and ODFW (2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-12

6.4 Limiting Factors and Threats for LCR Coho Salmon

Lower Columbia River coho salmon have been—and continue to be—affected by habitat 

degradation, hydropower impacts, harvest, and hatchery production. The combined 

effects of these factors have reduced the persistence probability of all Lower Columbia 

River coho salmon populations. 

Table 6-5 and the text that follows summarize baseline limiting factors and threats for 

Lower Columbia River coho salmon strata based on population-specific limiting factors 

and threats identified in the management unit plans. In cases where conditions have 

changed significantly since the management unit plans’ analyses of limiting factors and 

threats (e.g., if harvest rates have dropped or a dam is no longer present), this is noted in 

the text. Unless otherwise noted, NMFS agrees that the management unit plans’ 

identification of limiting factors provide a credible hypothesis for understanding 

population performance and identifying management actions.

Because the individual management unit plans used somewhat different terms in 

identifying limiting factors, NMFS has translated those terms into standardized and 

more general terminology taken from a NMFS “data dictionary” of possible ecological 

concerns that could affect salmon and steelhead (Hamm 2012; see Section 5.4). In 

addition, in Table 6-5 NMFS has rolled up the population-specific limiting factors (see 

Appendix H) to the stratum level—a process that has resulted in some loss of specificity. 

In addition, each management unit plan used a different approach for identifying 

limiting factors and threats (see Section 5.3). One difference relevant to the crosswalk is 

that while the Oregon management unit plan identified primary and secondary limiting 

factors for each population in each threat category,11 the Washington management unit 

plan categorized limiting factors in this way only for habitat-related limiting factors, and 

the White Salmon plan and the estuary module did not use the primary and secondary 

terminology. For the crosswalk and this table, NMFS assigned primary and secondary 

status to non-habitat limiting factors for Washington populations (based on the 

Washington management unit plan’s quantification of threat impacts and the 

professional judgment of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s staff and 

consultants). For populations that historically spawned in the White Salmon subbasin, 

NMFS staff inferred primary and secondary designations based on discussion in the 

Washington and White Salmon management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, NMFS 2013). It is 

likely that some apparent distinctions in results between Washington and Oregon 

populations are artifacts of differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies and 

not an actual difference in conditions or their effects on salmon and steelhead 

populations. In addition, there is not necessarily a bright line between primary and 

secondary limiting factor designations. Nevertheless, NMFS believes that the 

designations are useful, particularly for looking across ESUs and populations and 

identifying patterns (see Chapter 4).

The management unit plans provide more detail on limiting factors and threats affecting 

 11 In the Oregon management unit plan, primary limiting factors are those that have the greatest impact and 

secondary limiting factors have a lesser but still significant impact.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-13

each Lower Columbia River coho salmon population, including magnitude, spatial 

scale, and relative impact (see LCFRB 2010a, Chapter 3 and various sections of Volume 

II; ODFW 2010, pp. 102-115; and NMFS 2013, Chapter 5). For a regional perspective on 

limiting factors and threats that affect multiple salmon and steelhead ESUs, see 

Chapter 4 of this recovery plan. For a description of the data dictionary, the approach 

NMFS used to correlate management unit terms for limiting factors with the 

standardized NMFS terminology at the population scale, and the approach for rolling 

up from the population to the stratum scale, see Section 5.4 and Appendix H.

Management unit recovery planners in Oregon and Washington recognized that six 

major categories of manageable threats—tributary habitat, estuary habitat, hydropower, 

harvest, hatcheries, and predation—were useful as an organizing construct for grouping 

limiting factors, quantifying impacts on population productivity, and determining how 

much different categories of threats would need to be reduced to close the gap between 

baseline and target population status. Planners in both Washington and Oregon 

quantified the impacts of each of these major threat categories on population status, 

along with a reduction in each impact that would be consistent with achieving 

population target status. The results of that analysis are presented in Section 6.5 and 

provide a related but slightly different perspective on limiting factors. The threat 

reduction targets also allow actions to be scaled to achieve a specific impact reduction, 

and to be linked to monitoring and performance benchmarks.

Table 6-5

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Coho Salmon: Stratum-Level 

Summary

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s) VSP Parameters Affected Coast Cascade Gorge

Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Habitat 

Quantity Small dam (irrigation) All

Secondary for 

Upper Gorge/Hood 

adults

Riparian 

Condition

Past and/or current 

land use practices All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Channel 

Structure and 

Form

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Peripheral 

and 

Transitional 

Habitats: Side 

Channel and 

Wetland 

Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Peripheral 

and 

Transitional 

Habitats: 

Floodplain 

Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-14

Table 6-5

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Coho Salmon: Stratum-Level 

Summary

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s) VSP Parameters Affected Coast Cascade Gorge

Sediment 

Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor 

All

Primary for 

WA 

juveniles; 

secondary 

for OR

juveniles

12

Secondary for 

Clackamas, Sandy, 

Kalama, and 

Washougal 

juveniles; primary for 

juveniles in all other 

populations

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that impair 

riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dams

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all 

populations

Secondary for 

Upper 

Gorge/White 

Salmon

juveniles

13 and 

Upper 

Gorge/Hood 

juveniles

Water 

Quantity 

(Flow)

Dams, land use, 

irrigation, municipal, 

and hatchery 

withdrawals

All

Primary for 

Youngs 

Bay and 

Big Creek 

juveniles; 

secondary 

for 

juveniles in 

all other 

populations

Primary for Tilton, 

Kalama, and 

Washougal 

juveniles; secondary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Primary for 

Upper 

Gorge/Hood 

juveniles 

(irrigation 

withdrawals); 

secondary for 

juveniles in all 

other 

populations

Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors14

Toxic 

Contaminants

Agricultural chemicals, 

urban and industrial 

practices

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Food15 Dam reservoirs All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

 12 This distinction is likely an artifact of differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies between the 

two states and not an actual difference in sediment conditions in tributary streams or their effects on coho 

populations.

13 For the Upper Gorge/White Salmon population, water temperature in the mainstem White Salmon River 

is at or near optimum levels for salmonids. Maximum temperature within the expected range of 

anadromous fish within the White Salmon subbasin meets Washington state water quality standards, with

the exception of Rattlesnake Creek. Rattlesnake Creek is a significant habitat area where water temperature 

approaches lethal levels in some locations during some years (NMFS 2013).

14 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this table and Section 6.4.2 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River coho salmon 

populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine limiting 

factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly revised) 

through adaptive management.

15 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-15

Table 6-5

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Coho Salmon: Stratum-Level 

Summary

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s) VSP Parameters Affected Coast Cascade Gorge

(Shift from 

macrodetritalto 

microdetritalbased food 

web )

Peripheral 

and 

Transitional 

Habitats: 

Estuary 

Condition 

Past and/or current 

land use 

practices/transportation 

corridor, mainstem 

dams

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Channel 

Structure and 

Form

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Sediment 

Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use 

practices/transportation 

corridor, dams 

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that impair 

riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow; dam 

reservoirs

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Water 

Quantity 

(Flow)

Columbia River 

mainstem dams All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Hydropower Limiting Factors

Habitat 

Quantity

(Access)

Bonneville Dam All

Secondary for 

Upper 

Gorge/White 

Salmon and 

Upper 

Gorge/Hood 

adults and 

juveniles 

Habitat 

Quantity 

(Inundation)

Bonneville Dam All

Secondary for 

Upper 

Gorge/Hood and 

Upper 

Gorge/White 

Salmon

juveniles

16

Habitat 

Quantity

(Access)

Tributary Dams All

Primary for Upper 

Cowlitz, North Fork 

Lewis, Cispus, and 

Tilton adults and 

juveniles; secondary 

for Clackamas 

juveniles

Primary for 

Upper 

Gorge/White 

Salmon adults 

and juveniles; 

secondary for 

Upper 

Gorge/Hood 

 

unclear. 

16 The exact extent to which Bonneville Reservoir inundated habitats for any species is unknown. Some 

biologists have hypothesized impacts to coho salmon as a result of inundation. Based on spawning habitat 

preferences, it is likely that the impacts of inundation were greatest on fall Chinook and chum salmon.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-16

Table 6-5

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Coho Salmon: Stratum-Level 

Summary

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s) VSP Parameters Affected Coast Cascade Gorge

adults and 

juveniles

Harvest Limiting Factors

Direct 

Mortality Fisheries A,D Primary for adults in all populations

Hatchery Limiting Factors

Food17

Smolts from all 

Columbia Basin 

hatcheries competing 

for food and space in 

the estuary

All

Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Population 

Diversity

Stray hatchery fish 

interbreeding with wild 

fish

A,P,D

Secondary 

for 

Clatskanie 

adults; 

primary for 

adults in all 

other 

populations 

except 

Scappoose

Secondary for 

Coweeman, 

Lewis(N&E), and 

Salmon Creek 

adults; primary for 

adults in all other 

populations except 

Sandy

Primary for 

adults in all 

populations

Predation Limiting Factors

Direct 

Mortality Land use A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Direct 

Mortality Dams A,P,D

Secondary for 

Upper 

Gorge/Hood and 

Upper 

Gorge/White 

Salmon adults 

6.4.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions and degraded floodplain habitat have 

significant negative impacts on juvenile coho salmon throughout the ESU and are 

identified as primary limiting factors for all populations. Degraded riparian conditions 

also are a primary limiting factor for juveniles and adults of all populations within the 

ESU, as are channel structure and form issues. Extensive channelization, diking, wetland 

conversion, stream clearing, and, in some subbasins, gravel extraction have severed 

access to historically productive habitats, simplified many remaining tributary habitats, 

and weakened the watershed processes that once created healthy ecosystems. In 

 17 Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia Basin hatcheries 

may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and habitat space in the estuary. NMFS

(2011a) and LCFRB (2010a) identified competition for food and space among hatchery and natural-origin 

juveniles in the estuary as a critical uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed 

competition for food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define and describe the 

scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin 

salmon and steelhead in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore ocean habitats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-17

addition, the lack of large woody debris and appropriately sized gravel has significantly 

reduced the amount of suitable spawning and rearing habitat. 

Sediment conditions (affecting egg to fry survival) are identified as a primary limiting 

factor for all Washington populations and a secondary limiting factor for the Oregon 

portion of the ESU.18 The high density of forest and rural roads throughout the Lower 

Columbia subdomain leads to an abundance of fine sediment in tributary streams that 

covers spawning gravel and increases turbidity. Water quantity issues related to 

withdrawals or to land uses that alter hydrology have been identified as either primary 

or secondary for all coho salmon populations. In addition, water quality—specifically, 

elevated water temperature, generally brought about through land uses, lack of 

functional riparian habitat, and water withdrawals—is a secondary limiting factor for all 

populations except the Lower Gorge.19

In the Coast stratum, tributary habitat limiting factors are generally the same as those 

described for the ESU and are attributable largely to past and current land uses in Coaststratum watersheds. Private and state forest land used for timber harvest predominates 

in the upper reaches of these watersheds, while lower reaches are mostly in agricultural 

and rural residential use and have been extensively modified by bank stabilization, 

levees, and tide gates. Water quantity issues related to withdrawals or to land uses that 

alter hydrology are identified as a primary limiting factor for winter parr in Youngs Bay 

and Big Creek and as secondary for all other Coast-stratum populations. 

Habitat limiting factors in the Cascade stratum are generally the same as those described 

for the ESU. Altered hydrology and flow timing are identified as a primary limiting 

factor for the Tilton, Kalama, and Washougal populations and a secondary limiting 

factor for the other Cascade-stratum populations. Land uses that have led to these 

conditions include forest management and timber harvest, agriculture, urban and rural 

residential development, and gravel extraction. A mix of private, state, and federal forest 

land predominates in the upper mainstem and headwater tributaries of the Cascade 

subbasins, while the lower mainstem and tributary reaches of most subbasins are 

characterized by agricultural and rural residential land use, with some urban 

development, especially in the Salmon Creek and lower Clackamas subbasins. The 

Oregon management unit plan notes that in the Clackamas, high water temperatures are 

attributed in part to hydropower reservoirs.

A unique issue in the Cascade stratum is legacy effects in the Toutle subbasin of the 1980

Mount St. Helens eruption. The North Fork Toutle in particular was heavily affected by 

sedimentation from the eruption. A sediment retention structure was constructed on the 

North Fork Toutle in an attempt to prevent continued severe sedimentation of stream 

 18 This distinction likely is an artifact of differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies between the 

two states and not an actual difference in sediment conditions in tributary streams or their effects on coho 

populations.

19 For the Upper Gorge/White Salmon population, water temperature in the mainstem White Salmon River 

is at or near optimum levels for salmonids. Maximum temperature within the expected range of 

anadromous fish within the White Salmon subbasin meets Washington state water quality standards, with 

the exception of Rattlesnake Creek. Rattlesnake Creek is a significant habitat area where temperature 

approaches lethal levels in some locations during some years (NMFS 2013). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-18

channels and associated flood conveyance, transportation, and habitat degradation 

problems. The structure currently blocks access to as many as 50 miles of habitat for 

anadromous fish. Although fish are transported around the structure via a trap and haul 

system, it remains a source of chronic fine sediment to the lower river; this reduces

habitat quality and has interfered with fish collection at its base. 

In the Gorge stratum, habitat limiting factors are generally the same as those described 

for the ESU and result largely from past and current land uses. A mix of private, state, 

and federal forest land predominates in the upper mainstem and headwater reaches of 

the Gorge subbasins, while the lower mainstem and tributary reaches are characterized 

by transportation and rural residential land uses, with some urban development. Water 

quantity issues caused by irrigation withdrawals are a primary limiting factor for the 

Upper Gorge/Hood population and a secondary limiting factor for the other 

populations. Highway and railroad transportation corridors run parallel to the 

Columbia River shoreline, traversing all creek drainages in ways that restrict access and 

disconnect upland and lowland habitat processes. For the Upper Gorge populations, 

inundation of historical habitat by Bonneville Reservoir also is a limiting factor.20 In 

addition, Laurance Lake Dam, operated by the Middle Fork Irrigation District, blocks 

access to coho salmon habitat in the Hood subbasin and is identified as a secondary 

limiting factor. 

Habitat within the White Salmon subbasin was altered by the removal of Condit Dam 

(breaching occurred in October 2011 and full removal in September 2012). Alterations 

include near-term negative effects from sediment release and scouring. Scientists and 

managers expect long-term positive effects as the result of restoration of natural flow 

regimes and sediment transport, but monitoring is needed to evaluate habitat and fish 

response to dam removal, and additional assessment of habitat limiting factors will be 

needed to refine understanding of limiting factors. 

6.4.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors21

As stream-type fish, coho salmon spend less time in the Columbia River estuary and 

plume than do ocean-type salmon such as fall Chinook, yet estuary habitat conditions 

nevertheless play an important role in the survival of coho salmon juveniles, particularly 

those displaying less dominant life history strategies. Water quantity issues related to 

altered hydrology and flow timing are identified as a primary limiting factor for all 

 20 The exact extent to which Bonneville Reservoir inundated habitats for any species is unknown. Some 

biologists have hypothesized impacts to coho salmon as a result of inundation. Based on spawning habitat 

preferences, it is likely that the impacts of inundation were greatest on fall Chinook and chum salmon.

21 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this section and in Table 6-5 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River coho salmon 

populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine limiting 

factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly revised) 

through adaptive management. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-19

populations, as is impaired sediment and sand routing; these limiting factors are 

associated with hydroregulation at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the 

Columbia Basin, and, in the case of sediment issues, land uses both past and present. 

Much of the land surrounding the Columbia River estuary is in agricultural or rural 

residential use and has been extensively modified via dikes, levees, bank stabilization, 

and tide gates. Altered hydrology and sediment routing influence habitat-forming 

processes, the quantity and accessibility of habitats such as side channels and wetlands, 

the dynamics of the Columbia River plume, and the estuarine food web. Channel 

structure issues, in the form of reduced habitat complexity and diversity, also are a 

primary limiting factor for juveniles from all populations. Again, simplification of 

channel structure is related to conversion of land to other uses—agricultural, rural 

residential, and as a transportation corridor.

Lack of access to peripheral and transitional habitats, such as side channels and 

wetlands, is a secondary limiting factor for juveniles from all populations, with access 

being impaired by land uses—including the transportation corridor—and by flow 

alterations caused by mainstem dams. Other secondary limiting factors in the estuary 

that affect all coho salmon populations are exposure to toxic contaminants (from urban, 

industrial, and agricultural sources) and elevated late summer and fall water 

temperatures, which are related to (1) land use practices that impair riparian function or 

decrease streamflow, and (2) large hydropower reservoirs.22 Altered food web dynamics 

involving a transition from a macrodetrital-based food web to a microdetrital-based 

food web also are considered a secondary limiting factor for all populations.23 These 

changes in the estuarine food web are caused primarily by increased microdetrital 

inputs from hydropower reservoirs and the loss of wetland habitats through diking and 

filling.

6.4.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors

The severity of dam-related impacts on coho salmon populations varies throughout the 

ESU. Flow management operations at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the 

Columbia Basin (Grand Coulee, Dworshak, etc.) affect all juvenile Lower Columbia 

River coho salmon in the lower mainstem and estuary, and potentially in the plume—

primarily by altering flow volume and timing. These alterations impair sediment 

routing, influence habitat-forming processes, reduce access to peripheral habitat, and 

change the dynamics of the Columbia River plume and the estuarine food web (see 

Section 6.4.2).24 Moreover, the large reservoirs associated with mainstem dams 

contribute to elevated water temperatures downstream in late summer and fall.

Although the management unit recovery plans identified temperature impacts of the 

 22 Although the management unit plans identified temperature impacts in the estuary as a secondary 

limiting factor for juveniles in all populations, the timing of juvenile coho salmon migration raises questions 

about the significance of this limiting factor; see Section 6.4.3. 

23 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 

24 It is likely that flow impacts of the hydropower system affect Lower Columbia River ESUs more through 

changes in habitat-forming processes (including impacts to the plume) and food web impacts than through 

changes in migratory travel time.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-20

hydropower system as a secondary limiting factor for all juvenile coho salmon, 

migration of juvenile coho salmon peaks in mid-April through mid-July. Thus, it is 

unlikely that elevated mainstem temperatures are having a significant impact on this 

currently dominant coho salmon life history type. However, some coho salmon juveniles 

may be present year-round in the estuary (Dawley et al. 1986, McCabe et al. 1986, 

Roegner et al. 2004, Bottom et al. 2008, cited in Figure 2.2 of Carter et al. 2009). In 

addition, if recovery is successful in achieving more diverse life-history patterns for coho 

salmon, it is possible that temperature impacts of the hydropower system could become 

more significant in localized areas. For the Upper Gorge/Hood and Upper Gorge/White 

Salmon populations, which spawn above Bonneville Dam, passage issues at Bonneville 

and inundation of historical spawning habitat by Bonneville Reservoir are identified as 

secondary limiting factors.25

The effects of tributary dams vary by stratum. There are no tributary hydropower dams 

in the Coast stratum. In the Cascade stratum, tributary hydropower facilities are a 

primary limiting factor in the Cowlitz subbasin (for the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and 

Tilton populations, but not for the Lower Cowlitz population) and in the Lewis subbasin 

(for the North Fork Lewis population). Tributary hydropower facilities are a secondary 

limiting factor for the Clackamas population, impairing downstream passage of 

juveniles. Tributary hydropower was not identified as a limiting factor in the Sandy 

subbasin (the PGE Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, which consisted of Marmot Dam and

the Little Sandy diversion dam, was removed in 2007-2008). There are no tributary 

hydropower facilities in the Coweeman, Toutle, Kalama, East Fork Lewis, Salmon Creek, 

or Washougal subbasins.26

In the Gorge stratum, the presence of Condit Dam was identified as a primary limiting 

factor for the Upper Gorge/White Salmon population. (The dam was breached in 

October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012, so this limiting factor has 

now been addressed.) Powerdale Dam on the Hood River was identified as a secondary 

limiting factor for adult and juvenile passage but was removed in 2010. Tributary 

hydropower is not a limiting factor for the Lower Gorge population. 

6.4.4 Harvest Limiting Factors

Harvest-related mortality is identified as a primary limiting factor for all populations 

within the ESU and occurs as a result of direct and incidental mortality of natural-origin 

fish in ocean fisheries, Columbia River recreational fisheries, and commercial gillnet 

fisheries. The harvest targets hatchery-origin fish, which make up the vast majority of 

coho salmon returning to the Columbia River (Ford 2011). For the period from 1970 to 

1993, harvest rates averaged 82 percent (NMFS 2008c). Since 2005, when NMFS listed 

Lower Columbia River coho salmon, harvest impacts have been reduced through 

measures such as mark-selective fisheries and time and area closures in both ocean and 

in-river fisheries, such that exploitation rates on natural-origin Lower Columbia River 

 25 The exact extent to which Bonneville Reservoir inundated habitats for any species is unknown. Some 

biologists have hypothesized impacts to coho salmon as a result of inundation. Based on spawning habitat 

preferences, it is likely that the impacts of inundation were greatest on fall Chinook and chum salmon. 

26 However, the North Fork Toutle sediment retention structure currently blocks access to as many as 50 

miles of habitat for anadromous fish. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-21

coho salmon have averaged 16 percent.27 However, some populations experience higher 

impacts. ODFW estimated that harvest impacts on natural- and hatchery-origin fish 

from the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations are as high as 90 percent and 70 

percent, respectively, because of terminal fisheries that target hatchery-origin returns to 

these off-mainstem areas. Some additional harvest affects the populations that pass 

Bonneville Dam as a result of tribal fisheries in Zone 6.28 Although harvest has been 

reduced substantially in recent years, recovery efforts will continue to focus on 

refinements in harvest management. 

6.4.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors

From 2005 to 2009, an average of approximately 13 million hatchery coho salmon were 

released per year in the lower Columbia basin (Ford 2011). Additional hatchery coho 

salmon are released upstream in the Columbia Basin with potential effects on Lower 

Columbia River coho salmon through straying and competition and predation in the 

lower mainstem and estuary. Although this production is reduced from the peak in the 

late 1980s, legacy effects of hatchery fish and current hatchery production continue to 

pose a significant threat to Lower Columbia River coho salmon. It is likely that most 

coho salmon spawning naturally in the lower Columbia River are of hatchery origin. 

Population-level effects resulting from stray hatchery fish interbreeding with naturalorigin fish are a primary limiting factor for the majority of the populations in the ESU 

and a secondary limiting factor for all other populations except the Scappoose and 

Sandy. Hatchery straying, combined with past stock transfers, has likely reduced genetic 

diversity within and among Lower Columbia River coho salmon populations. This, 

combined with the small number of populations with significant natural production, has 

resulted in reduced diversity within the ESU. Population productivity, abundance, and 

resilience has likewise declined as a result of the influence of hatchery-origin fish. 

Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia 

Basin hatcheries may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and 

habitat space in the estuary. NMFS (2011a) and LCFRB (2010a) identified competition for 

food and space among hatchery and natural-origin juveniles in the estuary as a critical 

uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed competition for 

food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define 

and describe the scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between 

hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon and steelhead in freshwater, estuarine, and 

nearshore ocean habitats. 

6.4.6 Predation Limiting Factors

Direct mortality from predation is a secondary limiting factor for all coho salmon 

populations. Anthropogenic changes to habitat structure have led to increased predation 

by Caspian terns, double-crested cormorants, and various other seabird species in the 

 27 Fishery impact rates for LCR coho are based on data for the Clackamas and Sandy populations, but 

because of differences in ocean distribution among populations, there is uncertainty about whether this 

impact rate applies to all populations. 

28 The mainstem Columbia River is divided into management areas (i.e., zones) in order to manage harvest 

under the U.S. v. Oregon agreement. Zone 6 extends from Bonneville Dam upstream to McNary Dam.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-22

Columbia River estuary and plume. Coho salmon, particularly those spawning above 

Bonneville Dam, also are subject to predation by non-salmonid fish (primarily 

pikeminnows above and below the dam but also walleye and smallmouth bass in 

the reservoir). 

6.5 Baseline Threat Impacts and Reduction Targets

Table 6-6 shows the estimated impact on each Lower Columbia River coho salmon 

population resulting from potentially manageable threats, organized into six categories: 

tributary habitat degradation, estuary habitat degradation, hydropower, harvest, 

hatcheries, and predation. Both baseline and target impacts are shown, with the targets 

representing levels that would be consistent with long-term recovery goals. Impact 

values indicate the percentage reduction in abundance and productivity that is 

attributable to human activities related to a particular threat category. The value 

associated with any particular threat category can be interpreted as the percent 

reduction in abundance and productivity from historical conditions if that threat 

category were the only one affecting the population. The table also shows the overall 

percentage improvement that is needed to achieve the target impacts and corresponding 

population status.29 These cumulative values across all threat categories (both baseline 

and target) are multiplicative rather than additive. Both the Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans use cumulative survivals across threat categories to illustrate the 

overall level of improvement needed. Each plan assumes that there is a direct 

proportional relationship between the projected changes in cumulative survival and the 

required changes in natural-origin spawner abundance and productivity. For 

populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 percent, Table 6-

6 does not report the exact value, in part because the value is highly uncertain.30

As an example, the baseline status of the Grays/Chinook subbasin coho population, 

circa 1999, has been severely reduced by the combined effects of multiple threats. The 

cumulative reduction in status was estimated at 94.6 percent from the multiplicative 

impacts of multiple threats acting across the salmon life cycle. Thus, current status is just 

5.4 percent of the historical potential with no human impact. Tributary habitat, harvest, 

and hatchery impacts each accounted for reductions in population productivity of 

50 percent or more, with corresponding reductions in abundance, spatial structure, and 

diversity. The Washington management unit plan identifies a recovery strategy 

involving significant reductions in the impact of several threats. For instance, the plan 

targets tributary habitat impacts to be reduced from the estimated baseline level of 

70 percent to 40 percent (i.e., an approximately 100 percent improvement relative to 

 29 The percentage of survival improvement needed is the percentage change in net impacts, is derived from 

information in the Washington and Oregon management unit plans, and is calculated as follows: [(1-

CumulativeTarget)-(1-CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. These values generally correspond to 

population improvement targets identified for Washington populations in LCFRB (2010). Comparable 

numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling approach that Oregon 

recovery planners used to derive target impacts.

30 For some populations—many of them small—the survival improvement needed is very large and highly 

uncertain because various other factors also are uncertain (i.e., the population’s baseline persistence 

probability, the exact degree of impact of human activities on tributary habitat, and whether the 

population’s response to reductions in impacts will be linear). In addition, very small populations do not 

necessarily follow predictable patterns in their response to changing conditions.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-23

baseline conditions). With the targeted reductions in individual impacts, the cumulative 

effect of all impacts would drop from 94.6 percent at baseline to 74.7 percent at the target 

status. This change would translate into a 370 percent improvement in survival relative 

to the baseline. Although the population would still be experiencing abundance and 

productivity that are 74.7 percent lower than historical conditions, the extinction risk at 

this mortality level would be estimated sufficient to meet the targets for this plan.

Oregon and Washington recovery planners used somewhat different definitions or 

methods to quantify the estimated impacts of anthropogenic threats. Baseline impacts 

for Washington populations reflect conditions prevalent at the time of ESA listing (circa 

1999), while the baseline impacts for Oregon populations reflect conditions through 

2004. Dam impacts for Washington populations reflect passage mortality, habitat loss 

caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas; for Oregon 

populations, the estimates of impacts in the “Dams” column of Table 6-6 reflect direct 

upstream and downstream passage mortality only, with other dam impacts accounted 

for in the habitat and predation threat categories. Hatchery impacts for Washington 

populations were limited to not more than 50 percent per population, in accordance 

with Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) assessments of the potential for genetic 

effects (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2009); Oregon recovery planners estimated 

that hatchery impacts were equivalent to the rates at which hatchery fish were found on 

natural spawning grounds, based on analyzed relationships and reflecting a concern for 

both genetic and ecological effects. Washington recovery planners derived estimates of 

impacts to tributary habitat using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model. 

Oregon recovery planners estimated the mortality associated with estuary habitat 

degradation, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation and assigned all remaining 

mortality (relative to the difference between the current modeled abundance and 

estimated historical abundance) to tributary habitat. In general, the tributary habitat 

values in Table 6-6 have the highest degree of uncertainty relative to the other threat 

categories and, for Oregon populations, may include causes of mortality associated with 

the other threat categories but not directly captured in those mortality estimates. (See 

Section 5.5 for more on the methodologies used to estimate baseline impacts.) 

Estimates of threat impacts are useful in showing the relative magnitude of impacts on 

each population. Given the differences in methodologies, some values in Table 6-6 for 

Oregon and Washington populations are not necessarily directly comparable. Thus, 

values for Oregon populations are most directly comparable to those for other Oregon 

populations, and values for Washington populations are most directly comparable to 

those for other Washington populations. Regardless of differences in specific threat 

impact definitions and methods, the net effect of changes from all threats is useful in 

understanding the magnitude of population improvement needed to achieve the target 

population status. 

The target impacts in Table 6-6 represent one of several possible combinations of threat 

reductions that could conceivably close the conservation gap and lead to a population 

achieving its target status. The particular threat reductions shown in Table 6-6 reflect 

policy decisions and the methodologies and assumptions used by the different recovery 

planning teams. (For a description of how target impacts were developed, see Section

5.6.) In estimating impacts, management unit recovery planners evaluated each threat 

category independently (i.e., values in the table reflect the mortality of coho exposed to 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-24

that particular category of threats, whether or not they are exposed to threats in the 

other categories). The estimates of baseline threat impacts have high levels of 

uncertainty and in many cases should be considered working hypotheses that are 

testable as part of recovery plan implementation. Despite this uncertainty, it is the expert 

judgment of NMFS and management unit scientists that, based on the best available 

information at this time, the estimates of baseline threat impacts provide a reasonable 

estimate of the relative magnitude of different sources of anthropogenic mortality and 

serve as an adequate basis for designing initial recovery actions.31 As more and better 

information is collected, it will be applied to recovery efforts in an adaptive 

management framework. 

As shown in Table 6-6, loss and degradation of tributary habitat are the single largest 

threat to most coho salmon populations—and where the greatest gains in viability are 

expected to be achieved. Notable exceptions are the Clackamas, Upper Cowlitz, and 

Cispus populations. For the Clackamas population, protection of existing wellfunctioning habitat and reductions in hatchery impacts will play a key role in achieving 

the target status. The Upper Cowlitz and Cispus populations are projected to benefit 

greatly from hatchery reintroduction programs and dam passage improvements 

designed to restore their access to key historical spawning and rearing habitats. 

However, significant tributary habitat protection and restoration efforts also will be 

necessary for these populations. In most cases, population recovery objectives cannot be 

achieved without substantial improvements in habitat, even when the impacts of other 

non-habitat threats are practically eliminated.

Harvest and hatchery effects have been a significant threat to most Lower Columbia 

River coho salmon populations. Although recent actions have substantially reduced 

coho salmon harvest levels from baseline conditions, further refinements in harvest 

management are still needed. Hatchery impacts remain significant for many 

populations, including the Youngs Bay, Grays/Chinook, Big Creek, Elochoman, and 

Mill/Abernathy/Germany populations in the Coast stratum; the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, 

Washougal, and, to a lesser degree, the Clackamas populations in the Cascade stratum; 

and all Gorge-stratum populations. Threat reductions associated with estuary habitat 

improvements and predation management are needed for recovery and will benefit 

every Lower Columbia River coho salmon population; however, net reductions targeted 

in these threat categories are smaller than those for tributary habitat, harvest, hatcheries, 

and, in some cases, hydropower because for most populations the impacts of estuarine 

and predation threats are less.

Several populations designated as primary are targeted for significant reductions in 

almost every threat category. These include the Grays/Chinook, Elochoman, Upper 

Cowlitz and Cispus, Lower Gorge, Upper Gorge/White Salmon, and Upper 

Gorge/Hood populations. However, Oregon notes in its management unit plan that the 

tributary habitat and hatchery-related threat reductions targeted for the Upper 

Gorge/Hood population probably are unattainable. (See Sections 6.3 and 6.7 for 

 31 As implementation proceeds, research, monitoring, and evaluation and adaptive management will be key 

in helping to refine scientific understanding of the impact of threats on population persistence and of the 

extent to which management actions are reducing threats.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-25

additional discussion of issues related to the feasibility of achieving abundance and 

productivity targets for the Upper Gorge/Hood population.) 

More information on threat reduction scenarios, including descriptions of the 

methodologies used to determine baseline and target impacts, is available in the 

management unit plans (ODFW 2010, pp. 151-177 and LCFRB 2010a, pp. 4-30 through 4-

33, and 6-49 through 6-52).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-26

Table 6-6 

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Coho Salmon Populations

Impacts at Baseline32 Impacts at Target % Survival 

ImprovePopulation T.Hab33 Est

34 Dams35 Harv36 Hat37 Pred38 Cumulative39 T.Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

ment

Needed40

Coast

Youngs Bay (OR) 0.98 0.10 0.00 0.90 0.86 0.06 0.9998 0.97 0.08 0.00 0.90 0.86 0.03 0.9996 60

 32 Impact figures represent a percentage reduction in abundance and productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat category. 

Methods used to estimate impacts differ for Oregon and Washington populations. For example, baseline impacts reflect conditions circa 1999 for Washington 

populations and through 2004 for Oregon populations. Given the methodological differences, impact figures are not necessarily directly comparable. See 

Sections 5.5 and 5.6 for more on methodologies. 

33 Reduction in tributary habitat production potential relative to historical conditions. Oregon and Washington used different methods to estimate historical 

abundance. Oregon’s approach, which incorporates safety margins and includes causes of mortality that are not captured in the other five threat categories, tends 

to indicate a higher potential impact from tributary habitat loss and degradation than does Washington’s. 

34 Reduction in juvenile survival in the Columbia River estuary as a result of habitat changes (relative to historical conditions); excludes predation.

35 Reflects passage mortality, habitat loss caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas for Washington populations; for Oregon 

populations, dam impacts reflect direct passage mortality only.

36 Includes direct and indirect mortality.

37 Reflects only the negative impacts of hatchery-origin fish, such as high pHOS and low PNI (proportion of natural influence), not the benefits of conservation 

hatchery programs.

38 Includes the aggregate predation rate in the mainstem and estuary by northern pikeminnow, marine mammals, Caspian terns, and cormorants.

39 Cumulative values (both baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive and are equal to (1-[(1-Mthab)(1-Mest)(1-Mdams)(1-Mharv)(1-Mhatch)(1-Mpred)]). 

Minor differences from numbers in ODFW (2010) are due to rounding. 

40 Survival improvements indicate the percentage improvement (rounded to the nearest 10) in population survival needed to achieve target impacts and are 

derived from the cumulative values (baseline and target). For most populations this was calculated using the following equation: [(1-CumulativeTarget)-(1-

CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. For some Washington populations (Mill/Abernathy/Germany, Lower Cowlitz, Kalama, Upper Gorge), this 

equation yields a different result than that reported in LCFRB (2010a) because, for populations that have a very low probability of persistence and require very 

large improvements, the Washington management unit plan limited threat-specific reductions to 50 percent of the current impact as interim targets until the 

population response to improvements can be accurately gauged. For those populations, the numbers reported in this table are consistent with LCFRB (2010a) 

rather than with the aforementioned equation. In addition, these cumulative impact numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the 

modeling approach that Oregon recovery planners used to derive target impacts. For populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 

percent, this table does not report the exact value, for the reasons explained in Section 6.5. For Oregon populations designated as stabilizing (Youngs Bay and Big 

Creek), a survival improvement is shown because of improvements that are expected in tributary habitat, estuary conditions, and predation. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-27

Table 6-6 

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Coho Salmon Populations

Impacts at Baseline32 Impacts at Target % Survival 

ImprovePopulation T.Hab33 Est

34 Dams35 Harv36 Hat37 Pred38 Cumulative39 T.Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

ment

Needed40

Grays/Chinook (WA) 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.14 0.9458 0.40 0.09 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.7468 370

Big Creek (OR) 0.98 0.10 0.00 0.70 0.86 0.06 0.9993 0.97 0.08 0.00 0.70 0.86 0.03 0.9989 60

Eloch/Skam (WA) 0.60 0.16 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.14 0.9278 0.42 0.11 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.8037 170

Clatskanie (OR) 0.83 0.10 0.00 0.35 0.13 0.06 0.9187 0.68 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.10 0.04 0.8092 140

Mill/Ab/Germ (WA) 0.50 0.16 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.9108 0.25 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.6429 >500

Scappoose (OR) 0.83 0.10 0.00 0.35 0.05 0.06 0.9112 0.77 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.05 0.04 0.8553 60

Cascade

Lower Cowlitz (WA) 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.9465 0.58 0.13 0.00 0.42 0.45 0.13 0.8986 100

Upper Cowlitz (WA) 0.40 0.16 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 1.00 0.20 0.08 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.8096 >500

Cispus (WA) 0.50 0.16 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 1.00 0.25 0.08 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.82 >500

Tilton (WA) 0.95 0.16 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 1.00 0.95 0.16 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 1.00 041

SF Toutle (WA) 0.90 0.16 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.9822 0.79 0.14 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.9507 180

NF Toutle (WA) 0.90 0.16 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.9822 0.79 0.14 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.9507 180

Coweeman (WA) 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.50 0.20 0.15 0.9429 0.62 0.12 0.00 0.39 0.15 0.12 0.8474 170

Kalama (WA) 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.9465 0.56 0.12 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.12 0.8773 >500

NF Lewis (WA) 0.40 0.15 0.85 0.50 0.24 0.16 0.9756 0.38 0.14 0.80 0.47 0.22 0.15 0.9625 50

EF Lewis (WA) 0.80 0.15 0.00 0.50 0.21 0.16 0.9436 0.40 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.11 0.08 0.6610 >500

Salmon Creek (WA) 0.90 0.15 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.9822 0.90 0.15 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.9822 0

Clackamas (OR) 0.62 0.10 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.8750 0.61 0.08 0.06 0.25 0.10 0.04 0.7814 70

Sandy (OR) 0.83 0.10 0.04 0.35 0.09 0.06 0.9183 0.52 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.04 0.6948 250

 41 The Upper Cowltiz, Cispus, and Tilton populations require improvements in every threat category. However, given that hydropower impacts are 100 percent 

for these populations, they will not benefit from improvements in the other threat categories until some degree of passage is restored. Although passage 

improvements alone will not lead to recovery, how successful passage improvements are will greatly influence how much improvement is needed in the other 

threat categories. In addition, the formula for percent survival improvement for these populations was modified to account for the 100 percent hydropower 

impacts (i.e., to avoid having to divide by zero).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-28

Table 6-6 

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Coho Salmon Populations

Impacts at Baseline32 Impacts at Target % Survival 

ImprovePopulation T.Hab33 Est

34 Dams35 Harv36 Hat37 Pred38 Cumulative39 T.Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

ment

Needed40

Washougal (WA) 0.80 0.15 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.9643 0.40 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.7143 >500

Gorge

L Gorge — WA portion 0.50 0.15 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.9108 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.5524 400

L Gorge — OR portion 0.95 0.10 0.00 0.35 0.80 0.06 0.9945 0.63 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.10 0.04 0.8162 >500

U Gorge/White 

Salmon (WA)

42 0.50 0.14 0.06 0.50 0.75 0.19 0.9591 0.31 0.09 0.04 0.31 0.46 0.12 0.7475 >400

U Gorge/Hood (OR)

43 0.94 0.10 0.27 0.35 0.80 0.07 0.9952 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.4412 >500

 42 Baseline and target impacts for the Upper Gorge/White Salmon population are from LCFRB (2010a).

43 Oregon’s analysis indicates a low probability of meeting the delisting objective of high viability persistence probability for this population.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-29

6.6 ESU Recovery Strategy for LCR Coho Salmon

This section describes the recovery strategy for Lower Columbia River coho salmon. A 

general summary of the ESU-level strategy is presented first. This is followed by 

subsections on each of the threat categories and critical uncertainties that pertain to the 

strategy. Where appropriate, stratum-specific strategies are described for each 

threat category. 

6.6.1 Strategy Summary

The ESU recovery strategy for coho salmon involves improvements in all threat 

categories to increase abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure to the

point that the Coast, Cascade, and Gorge strata are restored to a high probability of 

persistence. The ESU recovery strategy has seven main elements:

1. Protect and improve populations that have a clear record of continuous natural 

spawning and are likely to retain local adaptation (the Clackamas and Sandy), along 

with populations where there is documented natural production (the Clatskanie, 

Scappoose, and Mill/Abernathy/Germany). 

2. Fill information gaps regarding the extent of natural production in other 

populations, and focus additional recovery efforts on populations that have the 

greatest prospects for improvement.

3. Protect existing high-functioning habitat for all populations. 

4. Restore tributary habitat (particularly overwintering habitat) to the point that each 

subbasin can support coho salmon at the target status for that population. In most 

subbasins this will mean having adequate habitat to support a viable population.

5. Reduce hatchery impacts on natural-origin fish so that impacts are consistent with 

the target status of each population. (The Grays/Chinook, Elochoman/Skamokawa, 

Mill/Abernathy/Germany, Clatskanie, Clackamas, Washougal, and Gorge-stratum 

populations are targeted for large reductions in hatchery impacts.) 

6. Refine harvest management so that impacts are consistent with population and 

overall ESU recovery goals.

7. Reestablish naturally spawning populations above tributary dams on the Cowlitz 

and North Fork Lewis rivers by improving passage at dams and continuing to 

reintroduce coho salmon in these mid- to high-elevation habitats. 

Very large improvements are needed in the persistence probability of most coho salmon 

populations if the ESU is to achieve recovery. (See Table 6-4 for the target status for each 

coho salmon population and Figure 6-3 for the gaps between baseline and target status.) 

The recovery strategy for Lower Columbia River coho salmon is a long-term, “all-H” 

approach in which plan implementers begin work on all of the elements described above 

immediately and implement actions associated with each of the six threat categories
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-30

simultaneously.44 As part of a series of 3- to 5-year implementation schedules, 

management unit planners will work with NMFS staff to prioritize individual actions 

within each threat category, rather than across threat categories (see Chapter 11 for more 

on implementation). Recovery will require improvements in every threat category, even 

those improvements in Table 6-6 that are relatively small. Substantial actions are needed 

to improve tributary habitat and reduce the effects of hatcheries, harvest, and 

hydropower; without improvements in all of these threat categories, the benefits of 

actions in any individual sector are unlikely to be fully realized and the expected threat 

reductions will not be achieved. 

Immediate implementation of certain actions is expected to reduce short-term 

population risk relatively quickly. Examples include reducing harvest impacts (this has 

already begun), providing access to blocked habitat, and carrying out site-specific 

habitat restoration to provide crucial overwintering habitat. Hatchery actions are needed 

immediately to begin reducing the influence of hatchery-origin fish on natural 

populations; over the long term, the type and extent of hatchery actions will be adjusted 

based on the results of new, more extensive population monitoring. The benefits of some 

actions, such as restoring riparian conditions to improve watershed function, will not be 

felt for years or decades after implementation. These actions also must be begun as soon 

as possible so that adequate habitat is in place to support increasing and eventually 

viable coho salmon populations. Recovery also will require contributions from estuary 

habitat and predation management actions; however, for stream-type fish such as coho 

salmon, these gains are expected to be less than those from coordinated efforts to 

address tributary habitat, hatchery, harvest, and hydropower impacts. In addition, 

substantial increases are needed in the monitoring of coho salmon spawner abundance, 

the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners, and fishery impacts in order to fill 

information gaps, especially in Washington. 

The subsections below describe recovery strategies and near-term and long-term 

priorities for each threat category. For specific management actions in each threat 

category, linked to population and location, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 

2010a, ODFW 2010, NMFS 2013). 

6.6.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy

Coho salmon will benefit from the regional tributary habitat strategy described in 

Section 4.1.2. The regional strategy is directed toward protecting and restoring highquality, well-functioning salmon and steelhead habitat through a combination of (1) sitespecific projects that will protect habitat and provide benefits relatively quickly, 

(2) watershed-based actions that will repair habitat-forming processes and provide 

benefits over the long term, and (3) landscape-scale programmatic actions that affect a 

class of activities (such as stormwater management or forest practices) over multiple 

watersheds. Because the lack of complex overwintering habitat is a primary limiting 

factor for coho salmon, an immediate priority is to implement actions to increase offchannel, side-channel, and floodplain habitat in a network of high- and low-elevation 

tributary and Columbia River floodplain locations. Improving riparian cover and 

 44 In fact, implementation of recovery actions to reduce threats in each category is already under way, 

although the scale of effort is less than that called for in this recovery plan.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-31

recruitment of large wood to streams also will be a priority. The subsections below 

summarize additional, stratum-specific tributary habitat strategies for coho salmon.

6.6.2.1 Coast-Stratum Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Lower Columbia River coho salmon tributary habitat strategy in 

the Coast stratum, considerations include the following:

• Upland areas are predominantly state and private timber land; these lands must 

be managed to protect and restore watershed processes. 

• Lowland areas are primarily in agricultural or rural residential use. These areas 

have been extensively modified by dikes, levees, bank stabilization, and tide 

gates; efforts to protect and restore habitat complexity will be priorities here. 

• Sediment source analyses and implementation of actions to reduce sediment will 

be needed in most Coast stratum tributaries. 

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

the Washington management unit plan calls for restoring passage at culverts and other 

artificial barriers in the Elochoman subbasin; this would restore access to as many as 

10 miles of habitat for coho salmon (LCFRB 2010a, Volume II). The Oregon management 

unit plan identifies a need to investigate whether headwater springs in the Clatskanie 

and Scappoose are drying up as a result of land management practices (ODFW 2010). 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 6-6, 

the scale of tributary habitat improvements needed for Coast-stratum coho salmon 

ranges from minimal in the Youngs Bay and Big Creek subbasins to increases of 45 to 50 

percent in the productive capacity of tributary habitat in the Grays/Chinook and 

Mill/Abernathy/Germany subbasins, respectively (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). For 

Oregon populations, estimates of the number of additional miles of high-quality coho 

salmon habitat that are needed range from minimal in Youngs Bay and Big Creek to 19 

miles and 10 miles in the Clatskanie and Scappoose subbasins, respectively 

(ODFW 2010). 

6.6.2.2 Cascade-Stratum Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Lower Columbia River coho salmon tributary habitat strategy in 

the Cascade stratum, considerations include the following:

• Upper portions of the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, East Fork Lewis, 

Washougal, Clackamas, and Sandy subbasins are primarily federal forest lands. 

Continued implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan will be crucial in 

protecting and restoring coho salmon habitats in these areas.

• State or private forest land predominates in the upper portions of the 

Coweeman, Toutle, Kalama, North Fork Lewis, and Salmon Creek subbasins. 

These lands must be managed to protect and restore watershed processes.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-32

• In the lower reaches of most Cascade subbasins, including the Lower Cowlitz, 

Coweeman, North Fork Lewis, East Fork Lewis, Toutle, Salmon Creek, and 

Clackamas, floodplains have been drastically altered or disconnected as a result 

of channel modification to facilitate and protect urban and industrial 

development, agricultural land, and, in some cases, gravel mining. Restoration in 

these areas will need to be balanced with the need to protect existing 

infrastructure and control flood risk.

• This stratum includes the most heavily urbanized areas in the Columbia Basin. 

Managing the impacts of growth and development on watershed processes and 

habitat conditions will be key to the protection and improvement of habitat 

conditions for coho salmon in these areas.

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

addressing passage barriers such as culverts will benefit coho salmon by restoring access 

to habitat in a number of locations, including the Tilton, Cispus, Lower Cowlitz, and 

Upper Cowlitz subbasins (in some cases, additional assessment is needed to inventory 

and prioritize these blockages). Addressing sedimentation issues associated with the 

sediment retention structure will be a priority for the North Fork Toutle subbasin. In the 

Sandy subbasin, implementation of the city of Portland’s Bull Run water supply habitat 

conservation plan will contribute significantly to the habitat improvements needed to 

achieve the recovery target. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 6-6, 

the scale of habitat improvements needed for Cascade-stratum coho salmon populations 

ranges from minimal—for the Tilton and Salmon Creek populations (which, as 

stabilizing populations are expected to remain at their baseline status of very low 

probability of persistence)—to a 35 to 50 percent increase in the productive capacity of 

tributary habitat in the Sandy, Washougal, and East Fork Lewis subbasins. Oregon 

estimated that, for the Clackamas population, existing habitat is adequate to achieve a 

very high probability of persistence. For the Sandy population, 37 additional miles of 

high-quality habitat (or 74 miles of moderate-quality habitat) are needed. 

6.6.2.3 Gorge-Stratum Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Lower Columbia River coho salmon tributary habitat strategy in 

the Gorge stratum, considerations include the following:

• Gorge populations occur in watersheds that are largely federal, state, and private 

forest land. These lands must be managed to protect and restore watershed 

processes.

• In the lower reaches of most Gorge tributary streams, floodplains have been 

drastically altered or disconnected as a result of channel modification to facilitate 

and protect development and transportation infrastructure. For the Lower Gorge 

population, site-specific actions will include addressing or mitigating the impacts 

of the highway and railroad transportation corridors that run parallel to the 

Columbia River shoreline, traversing all creek drainages in ways that restrict 

access and disconnect upland and lowland habitat processes. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-33

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

for the Upper Gorge/Hood coho salmon population, reduced instream flow from 

irrigation withdrawals is a primary threat, so actions to identify and implement flow 

improvements will be important. Improving fish passage at Laurance Lake Dam on the 

Clear Branch River and at other barriers in the Hood subbasin, such as irrigation 

diversions and road and railroad crossings, also will benefit the Upper Gorge/Hood 

population. 

In the White Salmon subbasin, the breaching of Condit Dam in October 2011 (full 

removal was completed in September 2012) created near-term negative effects in the 

habitat below the dam and the habitat within the footprint of the former reservoir 

because of sediment release and scouring. Long-term effects are expected to be positive 

because of restored natural flow and sediment transport regimes. The White Salmon 

management unit plan outlines four broad tributary habitat strategies: (1) gain 

information to identify and prioritize habitat actions, (2) when the dam is removed, 

restore mainstem habitat, (3) protect and conserve natural ecological processes, and (4) 

improve habitat in upriver reaches (NMFS 2013). In the near-term, evaluating the effects 

of the dam breaching and removal on habitat and performing additional assessment of 

habitat limiting factors are high priorities. 

Restoring floodplain connectivity and function is called for at locations below Bonneville 

Dam; however, there is little opportunity to implement floodplain measures above 

Bonneville Dam because most mainstem floodplain habitat was inundated by Bonneville 

Reservoir. For this reason, habitat efforts above the dam will rely on other strategies.

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 6-6, 

the Washington management unit plan identifies a 60 percent reduction in baseline 

tributary habitat impacts to meet the recovery target for the Washington portion of the 

Lower Gorge population and a 38 percent reduction to meet the target for the Upper 

Gorge/White Salmon population. Oregon calculated a 35 percent reduction in impact 

(equivalent to an additional 10 miles of high-quality habitat) needed in the Oregon 

portion of the Lower Gorge population to achieve recovery targets. For the Upper 

Gorge/Hood population, achieving delisting targets would entail reducing habitat 

impacts by about 90 percent, or creating 53 additional miles of high-quality habitat. The 

Oregon planning team believed that 10 miles of additional high-quality habitat is a 

feasible goal. There is significant uncertainty surrounding the estimate of 53 additional 

miles of high-quality habitat because of questions about the historical size of the Upper 

Gorge/Hood population.

6.6.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy 

Improving Columbia River estuary habitat as described in the regional estuary habitat 

strategy will benefit all Columbia Basin ESUs, including Lower Columbia River coho 

salmon. (For a summary of the regional estuarine habitat strategy, see Section 4.2.2.) The 

regional strategy reflects actions presented in the Oregon and Washington management 

unit plans to reduce estuarine habitat-related threats and is consistent with actions in the 

Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-34

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) assumes that feasible estuarine habitat improvements and predation 

management measures could result in a maximum increase of 20 percent in the number 

of coho salmon outmigrating from the Columbia River estuary. Oregon and Washington 

recovery planners set targets of reducing anthropogenically enhanced mortality in the 

estuary for coho salmon populations based on the estuary module and their own 

approaches to threat reductions (ODFW 2010, pp. 160, 166-173, and Tables 6-5 through 

6-12; LCFRB 2010a, p. 2-79, Table 2-16).

6.6.4 Hydropower Strategy

The hydropower recovery strategy for Lower Columbia River coho salmon is to address 

impacts of tributary hydropower dams through implementation of Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing agreements and thereby reestablish viable 

populations in the Upper Cowltiz, Cispus, North Fork Lewis, and White Salmon 

subbasins; achieve survival gains in the Hood and Clackamas subbasins; maintain the 

Tilton population at its baseline persistence probability of very low; and address 

downstream habitat impacts of the operation of some tributary hydropower dams. 

The strategy also includes measures to improve passage survival at Bonneville Dam for 

the Upper Gorge/Hood and Upper Gorge/White Salmon populations and 

implementation of mainstem flow management operations designed to benefit spring 

migrants from the interior of the Columbia Basin; NMFS expects that these flow 

management operations will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the 

plume for all Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. NMFS estimates 

that survival of Columbia River coho salmon passing Bonneville Dam was 95.1 percent 

for juveniles from 2002 to 2009 and 96.9 percent for adults from 2002 to 2007 (NMFS 

2008a). NMFS expects that implementation of actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion and its 2010 Supplement will improve juvenile coho salmon survival at 

Bonneville Dam by less than 1⁄2 percent, and that adult survival will be maintained at 

recent high levels (NMFS 2008a). Consequently, Oregon has not incorporated survival 

benefits from passage improvements at Bonneville into the hydropower threat reduction 

targets for Oregon populations above Bonneville.45 The Washington management unit 

plan assumes that actions identified in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement will aid adults and juveniles from all coho salmon populations originating 

above Bonneville Dam. For more on actions to improve mainstem dam passage, see the 

regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2.

In its management unit plan, Oregon incorporated several actions addressing impacts of 

the Columbia River hydropower system that are not included in the FCRPS Biological 

Opinion and its 2010 Supplement but that Oregon maintains are needed to benefit 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations that spawn above Bonneville 

Dam. The state of Oregon’s position is that the FCRPS action agencies should conduct 

operations in addition to those incorporated in the FCRPS Biological Opinion to address 

the needs of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Oregon is a plaintiff in litigation against 

various federal agencies, including NMFS, challenging the adequacy of measures in the 

 45 Hydropower-related threat reduction targets for Oregon populations above Bonneville Dam are 

associated with removal of Powerdale Dam on the Hood River.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-35

FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. NMFS does not agree with Oregon 

regarding the need for or likely efficacy of the additional actions Oregon proposed in 

that litigation, including the actions in the Oregon management unit plan that are not 

part of the FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. For more detail on these 

actions and NMFS’ view of them, see the regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2.

The subsections below summarize stratum-level hydropower strategies for coho salmon.

6.6.4.1 Coast-Stratum Hydropower Strategy

There are no tributary dams in the Coast ecozone, so the hydropower strategy for Coaststratum coho salmon is to implement the flow management operations designed to 

benefit spring migrants from the interior of the Columbia Basin; these flow management 

operations will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the plume for all 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations.

6.6.4.2 Cascade-Stratum Hydropower Strategy

The hydropower strategy for Cascade-stratum coho salmon is to create or improve 

passage at projects on the Cowlitz and Lewis rivers and to use hatchery reintroduction 

programs to reestablish viable populations in the Upper Cowlitz and Cispus subbasins 

and improve the persistence probability of the North Fork Lewis population (the Tilton 

population, in the Cowlitz system, is not expected to improve above its baseline 

persistence probability of very low). In addition, the efficiency of downstream passage 

facilities at hydropower dams in the Clackamas subbasin will be improved. These 

changes will be implemented under the terms of FERC relicensing agreements 

completed with (1) Tacoma Power for the Cowlitz River Project (settlement agreement 

completed in 2000), (2) PacifiCorp and the Cowlitz PUD for the Lewis River 

Hydroelectric Projects (settlement agreement in 2004), and (3) PGE for the Clackamas 

River Hydro Project in 2006. Habitat above the dams in these systems is relatively intact, 

with well-functioning watershed processes and a high percentage of federal land 

ownership (although the Tilton subbasin contains more development and a higher 

percentage of non-federal lands than do the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and Lewis 

subbasins). High-elevation habitat may also become increasingly important as lower 

elevation habitats are affected by changing climate (LCFRB 2010a).

In the Cowlitz subbasin, the hatchery Barrier Dam prevents all volitional passage of 

anadromous fish above RM 49.5. As of late 2011, coho salmon are collected at the dam, 

natural-origin fish are separated from hatchery broodstock, and hatchery- and naturalorigin fish are transported upstream of Cowlitz Falls dam and released into the Upper 

Cowlitz and Cispus rivers.46 Coho salmon smolts are collected at Cowlitz Falls Dam, 

briefly held in stress-relief ponds, and released into the lower Cowlitz (LCFRB 2010a). 

Passage at these dams is expected to be improved at some point as part of the 2000 FERC 

relicensing agreement. Tacoma Power will evaluate fish returns and survival through 

the reservoirs and assess passage options. Adult passage will be by trap and haul unless 

certain settlement agreement criteria (fish sorting, productivity, etc.) are met. If met, then 

passage at Mayfield Dam is likely to be provided through construction of a ladder, 

 46 Hatchery coho salmon also are released into the Tilton subbasin to support a fishery.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-36

whereas passage at the much larger Mossyrock Dam will likely be provided by either 

trap and haul or a tramway. 

In the North Fork Lewis subbasin, three dams (Merwin, Yale, and Swift) block passage 

to the upper North Fork Lewis, beginning with Merwin Dam at RM 20. As part of the 

2004 FERC relicensing agreement for these dams, reintroduction of coho salmon into 

habitat upstream of the three dams is being evaluated and is likely to occur beginning in 

2012-2013. The keys to successful reintroduction will be adequate passage of juveniles 

and adults to and from the upper watershed, hatchery supplementation, and habitat 

improvements. In addition, hydroregulation on the Lewis River has altered the natural 

flow regime below Merwin Dam, and the flow regime will be need to be adjusted to 

provide adequate flows for habitat formation, fish migration, water quality, floodplain 

connectivity, habitat capacity, and sediment transport. However, floodplain and channel 

alterations in the lower river will limit the ability to restore the natural flow regime, and 

flow modifications will need to take place in concert with restoration of lower river 

floodplain function and with management considerations for Lewis River late-fall 

Chinook salmon. 

In the Clackamas subbasin, there are both upstream and downstream passage facilities 

at the River Mill-Faraday-North Fork Dam complex operated by PGE. Early-run coho 

salmon, which are mostly of hatchery origin, also reproduce naturally in lower river 

tributaries and in the upper Clackamas above North Fork Dam. Clackamas late-run coho 

salmon are naturally produced fish and spawn mostly above North Fork Dam. As part 

of the 2006 FERC relicensing agreement, PGE agreed to improve downstream juvenile 

mortality through the dam complex to 3 percent or less and has already rebuilt the 

ladder and trap at North Fork Dam. 

6.6.4.3 Gorge-Stratum Hydropower Strategy

Tributary hydropower impacts for the Upper Gorge/White Salmon and Upper 

Gorge/Hood populations largely have been addressed by the removal of Condit and 

Powerdale dams, respectively. Condit Dam, on the White Salmon River, was breached 

by PacifiCorp in October 2011 and, under the terms of a 1999 decommissioning 

agreement and a 2006 Biological Opinion, was completely removed in September 2012. 

Removal reopens access to 17.7 miles of historical coho salmon habitat and will allow 

reestablishment of natural spawning in an area where coho salmon have been 

extirpated. The strategy calls for 4 to 5 years of monitoring after dam removal to 

determine whether natural recolonization is occurring through natural straying and then 

use of a hatchery reintroduction program if needed.

Powerdale Dam, on the Hood River, was operated by PacifiCorp and removed in 2010 

under the terms of a settlement agreement reached in 2003. The dam had passage 

systems in place, but removal is expected to improve access to historical coho salmon 

spawning and rearing habitat, further improve upstream and downstream survival, and 

reduce hydropower-related mortality for the Upper Gorge/Hood coho salmon 

population (ODFW 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-37

Actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement will also provide 

slight improvements in juvenile survival at Bonneville Dam for the two Upper Gorge 

populations (see the regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2). 

6.6.5 Harvest Strategy

Managers have implemented substantial reductions in coho salmon harvest impacts, 

which averaged 82 percent for the period from 1970 to 1993 (NMF 2008c). Since NMFS 

listed Lower Columbia River coho salmon in 2005, harvest rates have averaged 

16 percent. Consistent with the regional harvest strategy (see Section 4.5.2), the Oregon 

and Washington management unit plans both call for further refinements in harvest 

management practices so that they are consistent with population and overall ESU 

recovery goals while also maintaining harvest opportunities that target hatchery 

coho salmon. 

Harvest rates on naturally produced coho salmon currently are established using an 

abundance-based harvest matrix that considers spawning escapement and marine 

survival. Annual coho salmon harvest rates are set through the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s annual planning process in consultation with NMFS. The matrix 

is based on the status of the Clackamas and Sandy populations—the only populations 

within the ESU that were being monitored at the time the matrix was developed, and the 

two populations believed to be the ESU’s strongest. Consequently, the matrix does not 

adequately consider the effects of harvest on the ESU’s weaker populations. All coho 

salmon recreational fisheries have been mark-selective since 1998. Some commercial 

ocean fisheries have also been mark-selective in recent years, but mainstem gillnet 

fisheries currently are not. 

The management unit plans envision refinements in coho salmon harvest through 

(1) replacement or refinement of the existing harvest matrix to ensure that it adequately 

accounts for weaker components of the ESU, (2) continued use of mark-selective 

recreational fisheries, and (3) management of mainstem commercial fisheries to 

minimize impacts to natural-origin coho salmon.47 In refining the harvest matrix, the 

objective is to ensure that harvest management is consistent with maintaining 

trajectories in populations where natural production is beginning to be observed (e.g., 

the Clatskanie and Scappoose), with the assumption that additional refinements will be 

evaluated as natural production is documented in additional populations. Managing 

coho salmon harvest to minimize impacts to natural-origin fish is complicated by 

uncertainties regarding annual natural-origin spawner abundance and actual harvest 

impacts on natural-origin fish (in both ocean and mainstem Columbia fisheries). The 

management unit plans note these uncertainties and highlight the need for improved 

monitoring of harvest mortality and natural-origin spawner abundance. 

In terms of recommended harvest rates, Oregon modeled a harvest rate of 25 percent as 

a long-term average under an abundance-based framework. The Washington 

management unit plan recommends a phased harvest strategy involving lower nearterm rates to reduce population risks until habitat has improved. Modeling in the 

 47 The Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations would continue to experience higher harvest rates to 

accommodate terminal fisheries targeting hatchery fish in those areas.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-38

Washington management unit plan shows a scenario in which harvest rates would be 

managed for benchmarks of 8 to 25 percent throughout the first three of multiple 12-year 

evaluation periods (i.e., from 1999 through 2034). Then, the modeling shows that, 

assuming that benchmarks for habitat and other improvements have been met, harvest 

rates could rise (to 15 to 35 percent in the 2035 to 2046 period and to 20 to 50 percent 

thereafter) (LCFRB 2010a). These modeling results are planning targets and not 

predictions of future harvest rates; managers will establish future harvest rates based on 

observed indicators in Lower Columbia River coho salmon populations. 

Near-term priorities for implementing this harvest strategy include:

• Obtaining better information on natural-origin and hatchery-origin spawner 

escapement and better estimates of natural population productivity

• Obtaining a better estimate of harvest impact rates for natural-origin Lower 

Columbia River coho salmon in ocean and Columbia River mainstem fisheries 

(and, in particular, addressing uncertainties related to harvest impacts in 

mainstem fisheries)

• Evaluating and refining harvest strategies for periods of poor ocean conditions 

and for years when returns are strong

• Incorporating into the matrix a method of managing for weaker stocks that 

would benefit from harvest reductions

• Developing mark-selective fishing methods that can be used in the commercial 

mainstem fisheries

6.6.5.1 Coast-Stratum Harvest Strategies

The ESU-level harvest strategies will reduce harvest impacts on most populations in the 

Coast stratum. Exceptions are the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations, which are and 

will continue to be subject to higher harvest rates than most coho salmon populations 

because of Select Area fisheries. These fisheries, which are separate from the mainstem 

Columbia River fisheries, target hatchery coho salmon that return a few weeks earlier 

than the historical coho salmon run did (ODFW 2010). Under the harvest recovery 

strategy, the Select Area fisheries will continue, as will the corresponding high harvest 

impacts on the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations (estimated at 90 and 70 percent, 

respectively). ODFW may adjust the end dates for the Youngs Bay and Big Creek 

fisheries to further reduce impacts to natural-origin coho salmon in those subbasins 

(ODFW 2010). WDFW also opens fisheries in the Grays to target coho salmon 

originating in the Deep River net pen program and straying to the Grays.

6.6.5.2 Cascade-Stratum Harvest Strategies

ESU-level harvest strategies will benefit populations in this stratum. In addition, if the 

hatchery coho salmon program in the Clackamas subbasin is maintained, ODFW may 

increase the within-basin harvest rate on those hatchery fish to help reduce pHOS. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-39

6.6.5.3 Gorge-Stratum Harvest Strategies

ESU-level harvest strategies will benefit populations in this stratum. 

6.6.6 Hatchery Strategy

The regional hatchery strategy described in Section 4.4.2 summarizes goals and 

approaches relevant to Lower Columbia River coho salmon. Details of how the hatchery 

strategy will be implemented in each coho stratum will be developed as part of the 

transition schedules, but the subsections below provide some information. In instances 

where the run timings in coho salmon hatchery programs do not correspond to 

historical run timings, NMFS expects to work with its fish resource co-managers to 

determine the appropriate implementation strategy relative to historical run timing.

6.6.6.1 Coast-Stratum Hatchery Strategies

The preliminary intent for hatcheries in the Coast stratum includes maintaining the 

Youngs Bay and Big Creek subbasins as areas of hatchery production to support Select 

Area fisheries. Some hatchery coho salmon production from the Clackamas, Sandy, and 

Lower Gorge populations will be shifted to Youngs Bay to reduce hatchery-origin 

spawners in those upriver populations. Existing weirs in both Youngs Bay and Big 

Creek will be used to exclude hatchery-origin fish and create natural-origin spawning

areas.48 The Clatskanie, Scappoose, Elochoman, and Mill/Abernathy/Germany

subbasins will remain areas where no hatchery fish are released. If the level of hatchery 

fish straying from programs in other subbasins to spawn naturally in the Clatskanie and 

Scappoose systems is found to exceed 10 percent over a 9-year period, then ODFW will 

consider additional actions to reduce pHOS, including the installation of a weir and trap 

to sort hatchery fish. In the Grays subbasin, hatcheries will continue to be operated to 

support coho salmon harvest and potentially to enhance natural production through 

development of hatchery broodstocks similar to the late-returning historical populations 

(LCFRB 2010a). 

6.6.6.2 Cascade-Stratum Hatchery Strategies

In the Cascade stratum, hatcheries will be used in the near term to reintroduce coho 

salmon in the Upper Cowlitz subbasin (Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and Tilton populations) 

and North Fork Lewis subbasin (LCFRB 2010a). Hatchery-origin adult coho salmon 

already are being released upstream of dams to spawn naturally in the Upper Cowlitz, 

Cispus, and Tilton rivers, and in the North Fork Lewis, hatchery programs will be used 

to reintroduce coho salmon to the upper Lewis.

The preliminary intent is also that the Coweeman River in Washington will remain an 

area with no hatchery releases, along with the Clackamas River above North Fork Dam. 

For the Clackamas population, ODFW intends to meet a pHOS target of 10 percent or 

less by reducing coho salmon hatchery releases (from 500,000 to 350,000 beginning in 

 48 Clackamas coho production was reduced from 500,000 to 350,000 beginning in 2009. Sandy coho 

production was reduced from 700,000 to 500,000 in 2010, with the difference shifted to Youngs Bay. Lower 

Gorge releases were reduced from 1.2 million to 725,000 in 2010, with the difference shifted to the lower 

Columbia.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-40

2009), increasing harvest rates on hatchery coho salmon below North Fork Dam, and 

operating the trap at Eagle Creek hatchery for longer periods of time if needed. Coho 

salmon produced at the Eagle Creek hatchery are also used in reintroduction programs 

in the Yakima and Umatilla subbasins. When the Yakima and Umatilla programs are 

able to obtain broodstock from coho salmon returning to those subbasins, ODFW 

expects to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (which manages the Eagle Creek 

hatchery) to explore options for eliminating the in-basin program altogether 

(ODFW 2010). 

WDFW may consider short-term supplementation programs in some Cascade 

populations to bolster natural fish numbers above critical levels in selected areas until 

habitat is restored to levels where a population can be self-sustaining (LCFRB 2010a, 

Vol. II). Hatchery production for fishery enhancement will be the focus of hatchery 

programs in the Washougal, some programs in the Lower Cowlitz and North Fork 

Lewis, the North Fork Toutle, the Kalama, the Clackamas, and the Sandy (LCFRB 2010a, 

ODFW 2010). A weir will be installed in the lower Washougal River to separate 

hatchery- and natural-origin fish and to control the proportion of hatchery-origin fish on 

the spawning grounds. An existing weir in the lower Kalama River will be used for the 

same purpose. 

6.6.6.3 Gorge-Stratum Hatchery Strategies

For the Lower Gorge population, Oregon proposes to reduce pHOS by reducing coho 

salmon releases from the Bonneville hatchery from 1.2 million to 725,000 (with the 

difference in production shifted to Youngs Bay) and, possibly, using a trap and weir to 

separate hatchery-origin adults. Additionally, Oregon proposes discussions with tribes 

regarding longer acclimation and rearing at tribal release sites; this would increase 

imprinting to reduce hatchery-origin fish straying into the lower Gorge tributaries 

(ODFW 2010). Washington may consider a supplementation program for its Lower 

Gorge tributaries at some point in the future (LCFRB 2010a, Vol. II)

For the Upper Gorge/Hood population, Oregon outlines a strategy to reduce hatchery 

strays and to evaluate whether a reintroduction program is needed. The primary source 

of stray hatchery-origin coho salmon in the Hood subbasin is from releases of hatchery 

coho salmon into the Klickitat and Umatilla subbasins as part of reintroduction 

programs. Releases into the Umatilla subbasin dropped from 1.5 million to 1 million in 

2010. Additional reductions are expected for Klickitat River releases; however, 

reductions in these programs must be balanced with their intended purpose to support 

fisheries. Coho produced in tribal hatchery programs in the Klickitat River will also be 

marked. ODFW also will investigate opportunities to place weirs to trap and sort 

hatchery fish, but feasibility depends on finding a site where enough fish would be 

intercepted to achieve management objectives and that would allow for safe and reliable 

operation at an acceptable cost in a large system such as the Hood (ODFW 2010). 

For the Upper Gorge/White Salmon population, coho salmon releases from the Little 

White Salmon National Fish Hatchery ended in 2004, under an agreement among the 

parties to U.S. v. Oregon. In the White Salmon subbasin, the White Salmon Working 

Group, made up of federal, state, and tribal fisheries managers and representatives of 

PacifiCorp, has recommended monitoring natural coho salmon escapement and 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-41

production for 4 to 5 years after Condit Dam is removed.49 Depending on the results, 

they will then recommend either proceeding with natural recolonization or with 

supplementation (perhaps with hatchery juveniles from the Washougal and/or 

Bonneville/Cascade hatchery or offspring of wild broodstock from the Klickitat or 

White Salmon rivers) (NMFS 2013). 

6.6.7 Predation Strategy

The regional predation strategy (see Section 4.6.2) involves reducing predation by birds, 

fish, and marine mammals and will benefit all Lower Columbia ESUs, including coho 

salmon. 

6.6.8 Critical Uncertainties

Each aspect of the coho salmon recovery strategy has a number of critical uncertainties; 

in addition, there are critical uncertainties related to the historical structure of coho 

salmon populations, primarily in the Gorge ecozone. For all ESUs, there are 

uncertainties regarding how habitat actions will translate into changes in productivity 

and capacity (Roni et al. 2011). Prioritizing and identifying next steps in resolving 

uncertainties is a near-term priority. Critical uncertainties specific to the Lower 

Columbia River coho salmon recovery strategy include the following:

• Historical role of the Gorge populations and appropriate target persistence 

probabilities and abundance and productivity targets for those populations

• Current natural-origin and hatchery-origin spawner escapement and 

productivity

• Relationship of current run timings (early/late) to historical run timings, harvest 

impacts on specific populations relative to their return timing, and the 

appropriate harvest strategy in light of this information (particularly the 

suitability of timing harvest to coincide with the return of the Cowlitz coho 

salmon population) 

• Impact of climate change on freshwater and ocean habitats, including the impact 

of ocean acidification on the marine food webs on which salmon depend50

• Effectiveness of various approaches to developing integrated hatchery/natural 

populations

• Effectiveness of weirs in achieving pHOS targets

• Feasibility of achieving hatchery production and performance targets and 

maintaining harvest levels

 49 Condit Dam was breached in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012. 

50 The impact of climate change is a critical uncertainty for all species addressed in this recovery plan but is 

particularly pertinent to coho because coho are sensitive to local ocean conditions. See Section 4.7 for 

additional discussion of the impacts of climate change on Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-42

• Effective methods of providing adequate downstream passage efficiency for 

juveniles migrating past tributary dams

• Diversity of coho salmon life history strategies and how much coho salmon 

displaying less dominant life history strategies use the Columbia River estuary

These critical uncertainties represent preliminary priorities identified by Oregon and 

Washington recovery planners and NMFS Northwest Regional Office and Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center staff during a November 2010 workshop. They are preliminary 

priorities only (and are not in ranked order); as described in Chapter 10, additional 

discussion among local recovery planners and NMFS staff will be needed to finalize 

future research and monitoring priorities for Columbia River coho salmon. 

The management unit plans identify more comprehensive critical uncertainties and 

research, monitoring, and evaluation needs that, along with the list above, will provide 

the basis for these future discussions. The White Salmon and Washington management 

unit plans have discrete sections on critical uncertainties for all of the ESUs in general 

(see Section 8.3 of NMFS 2013, pp. 8-4 through 8-6, and Section 9.6 of LCFRB 2010a, pp. 

9-68 through 9-73), while the Oregon management unit plan embeds relevant critical 

uncertainties within subsections on monitoring and evaluation needs related to the four 

VSP parameters and five ESA listing factors (see Sections 8.4 and 8.5, respectively, of 

ODFW 2010). In addition, in June 2010, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 

completed the Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program for Lower Columbia Salmon and 

Steelhead as a companion to its recovery plan (LCFRB 2010b). This document also 

describes critical uncertainties. The list above also does not include critical uncertainties 

that apply to multiple ESUs; these will be discussed and considered as decisions are 

made in implementation. In addition, the critical uncertainties above are of a technical 

nature; there are also many critical uncertainties related to social, political, and economic 

issues. 

Critical uncertainties are one element of research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) and 

adaptive management, which will be key components of the coho salmon recovery 

strategy (see Chapter 10 for more discussion of RME and adaptive management for this 

recovery plan). 

6.7 Delisting Criteria Conclusion for LCR Coho Salmon

The requirement for determining that a species no longer requires the protection of the 

ESA is that the species is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future, based on evaluation of the listing factors 

specified in ESA section 4(a)(1). To remove the Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU 

from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (that is, to 

delist the ESU), NMFS must determine that the ESU, as evaluated under the ESA listing 

factors, is no longer likely to become endangered. 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate 

objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination in 

accordance with the provisions of the ESA that the species be removed from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-43

recovery criteria in this plan (both biological and threats criteria) meet this statutory 

requirement. 

As described in Section 6.3, if the scenario in Table 6-4 were achieved, it would exceed 

the WLC TRT’s viability criteria, particularly in the Cascade stratum (see Table 6-7).51

Exceeding the criteria in the Cascade stratum was intentional on the part of local 

recovery planners to compensate for uncertainties about the feasibility of meeting the 

WLC TRT’s criteria in the Gorge stratum, in particular the questions raised by Oregon 

about the feasibility of meeting the target status for the Upper Gorge/Hood population. 

Table 6-7

Coho Salmon Recovery Scenario Scores Relative to WLC TRT’s Viability Criteria

Species Number of Primary Populations Stratum Average Criteria

Coast Cascade Gorge Total Coast Cascade Gorge

n ≥ high 4 9 3 16 Avg. score 2.29 2.39 3

Coho

TRT criterion 

(n ≥ 2) 

met?

Yes Yes Yes

TRT criterion 

(avg. ≥ 2.25) 

met?

Yes Yes Yes

Source: Based on LCFRB (2010a), Table 4-7.

Oregon recovery planners’ uncertainty about the feasibility of meeting the recovery 

target of high persistence probability for the Upper Gorge/Hood population is based in 

part on questions about the feasibility of meeting the habitat and hatchery threat 

reduction targets for this population (ODFW 2010) and in part on questions raised by 

both Oregon and Washington management unit planners regarding Gorge strata and 

population delineations and the historical role of the Gorge populations (LCFRB 2010a, 

ODFW 2010). These questions include whether the Gorge populations were highly 

persistent historically, whether they functioned as independent populations within their 

stratum in the same way that the Coast and Cascade populations did, and whether the 

Gorge stratum itself should be considered a separate stratum from the Cascade stratum. 

As discussed in Section 3.2, NMFS has considered the WLC TRT’s viability criteria (from 

McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006 and summarized in Table 2-3), the additional 

recommendations in McElhany et al. (2007), the recovery scenarios and population-level 

goals in the management unit plans, and the questions management unit planners raised 

regarding the historical role of the Gorge strata. 

NMFS has concluded that the WLC TRT’s criteria adequately describe the characteristics 

of an ESU that meet or exceed the requirement for determining that a species no longer 

needs the protection of the ESA. These criteria provide a framework within which to 

evaluate specific recovery scenarios. NMFS has evaluated the recovery scenario 

 51 For example, in the Cascade stratum, nine populations are targeted for high or very high persistence 

probability, and, using the WLC TRT’s scoring system, the average viability score for all populations in the 

stratum would be 2.39. As discussed in Section 2.5.4, the TRT’s criteria for high probability of stratum 

persistence require that two or more populations be viable and that the average score for all populations in 

the stratum be 2.25 or higher.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

6-44

presented in the management unit plans for Lower Columbia River coho salmon 

(summarized in Table 3-1 of this recovery plan) and the associated population-level 

abundance and productivity goals (see Section 6.3) and has concluded that they also 

adequately describe the characteristics of an ESU that no longer needs the protections of 

the ESA. NMFS endorses the Lower Columbia River coho salmon recovery scenario and 

the associated population-level goals in the management unit plans (summarized in 

Table 3-1 and Section 6.3) as one of multiple possible scenarios consistent with delisting.

NMFS also agrees with the management unit planners that the historical role of the 

Gorge populations and stratum merits further examination. The extent to which 

compensation in the Cascade stratum is ultimately considered necessary to achieve an 

acceptably low risk at the ESU level will depend on how questions regarding the 

historical role of the Gorge populations are resolved.

NMFS therefore has developed the following delisting criteria for the Lower Columbia 

River coho salmon ESU. (NMFS has amended the WLC TRT’s criteria to incorporate the 

concept that each stratum should have a probability of persistence consistent with its 

historical condition, thus allowing for resolution of questions regarding the Gorge 

stratum):

1. All strata that historically existed have a high probability of persistence or have a 

probability of persistence consistent with their historical condition. High 

probability of stratum persistence is defined as: 

a. At least two populations in the stratum have at least a 95 percent probability 

of persistence over a 100-year time frame (i.e., two populations with a score 

of 3.0 or higher based on the TRT’s scoring system). 

b. Other populations in the stratum have persistence probabilities consistent 

with a high probability of stratum persistence (i.e., the average of all stratum 

population scores is 2.25 or higher, based on the TRT’s scoring system). (See 

Section 2.6 for a brief discussion of the TRT’s scoring system.) 

c. Populations targeted for a high probability of persistence are distributed in a 

way that minimizes risk from catastrophic events, maintains migratory 

connections among populations, and protects within-stratum diversity.

A probability of persistence consistent with historical condition refers to the 

concept that strata that historically were small or had complex population 

structures may not have met Criteria A through C, above, but could still be 

considered sufficiently viable if they provide a contribution to overall ESU 

viability similar to their historical contribution.

2. The threats criteria described in Section 3.2.2 have been met.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-1

7. Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon

7.1 Chinook Salmon Biological Background

7.1.1 Life History and Habitat

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are classified as 

spring, fall, or late fall based on when adults return to fresh water. Other life history 

differences among run types include the timing of spawning, incubation, emergence in 

freshwater, migration to the ocean, maturation, and return to fresh water. This life 

history diversity allows different runs of Chinook salmon to use streams as small as 

10 feet wide and rivers as large as the mainstem Columbia. Stream characteristics 

determine the distribution of run types among lower Columbia River streams. 

Depending on run type, Chinook rear for a few months to a year or more in freshwater 

streams, rivers, or the estuary before migrating to the ocean in spring, summer, or fall. 

All runs migrate far into the north Pacific on a multi-year journey along the continental 

shelf to Alaska before circling back to their river of origin. The spawning run typically 

includes three or more age classes. Adult Chinook salmon are the largest of the salmon 

species, and Lower Columbia River fish occasionally reach sizes up to 25 kilograms. 

Chinook salmon require clean gravels for spawning and pool and side-channel habitats 

for rearing (see Table 7-1 for freshwater habitat needs). All Chinook salmon die after 

spawning (LCFRB 2010a).

7.1.1.1 Spring Chinook Salmon Life History

Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon spawn primarily in upstream, higher 

elevation portions of large subbasins. Adults enter the lower Columbia River from 

March through June, well in advance of spawning in August and September (see 

Figure 7-1). 

Spring Chinook salmon are “stream-type” salmon that generally rear in the river for a 

full year. This extended freshwater residency is characteristic of Chinook salmon that 

inhabit watersheds where temperature and flow conditions provide suitable habitat 

conditions throughout the year. Most stream-type juveniles emigrate from fresh water as 

yearlings, typically in the spring of their second year. However, some juveniles from 

Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon populations migrate downstream from 

their natal tributaries in the fall and early winter into larger rivers, including the 

mainstem Columbia River, where they are believed to over-winter before outmigrating 

the next spring as yearling smolts (LCFRB 2010a). 

Once spring Chinook salmon leave freshwater, they usually move quickly through the 

estuary, into coastal waters, and ultimately to the open ocean. Once in the ocean, spring 

Chinook salmon migrate as far north as the Aleutian Islands and are widely distributed 

in the open ocean, far from coastal waters. Most remain at sea from 1 to 5 years (more 

commonly 2 to 4 years) and return to spawn at 3 to 6 years of age (LCFRB 2010a).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-2

Table 7-1

Key Habitat for Fall and Spring Chinook Salmon, by Life Stage 

Life Stage Key Habitat Descriptions

Spawning Riffles, tailouts, and the swifter areas in glides containing a mixture of gravel 

and cobble sizes with flow of sufficient depth for spawning activity

Incubation As for spawning, but with sufficient flow for egg and alevin development

Fry Colonization

Shallow, slow-velocity areas within the stream channel, including backwater 

areas, often associated with stream margins and back eddies and usually in 

relatively low-gradient reaches.

Active Rearing

Relatively slow-water habitat types, often near velocity shears, often 

associated with relatively low-gradient stream channel reaches, including 

primary pools, backwaters, tailouts, glides, and beaver ponds.

Inactive Rearing Non-turbulent habitat types, particularly deeper water types within the main 

channel, but also including slower portions of large cobble riffles.

Migrant All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of juvenile migrants.

Pre-Spawning Migrant All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of sexually mature 

adult migrants.

Pre-Spawning Holding Relatively slow, deep-water habitat types typically associated with (or 

immediately adjacent to) the main channel.

Source: Adapted from Northwest Power and Conservation Council (2004b).

Figure 7-1. Life Cycle of Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon

(Source: LCFRB 2010a)
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-3

7.1.1.2 Fall Chinook (“Tule”) Salmon Life History

Fall Chinook salmon spawn in moderate-sized streams and large river mainstems, 

including most tributaries of the lower Columbia River. Most Lower Columbia River fall 

Chinook salmon enter freshwater from August to September and spawn from late 

September to November, with peak spawning activity in mid-October (see Figure 7-2). 

These fish, referred to as “tule” stock, are distinguished by their dark skin coloration and 

advanced state of maturation at their return to fresh water. Tule fall Chinook salmon 

populations historically spawned in rivers and streams from the mouth of the Columbia 

River to the Klickitat River. 

Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon display an “ocean-type” life history. 

Juveniles typically begin emigrating downstream as subyearlings at 1 to 4 months of age 

and enter salt water in late summer or autumn. Juvenile trapping indicates that 

individual populations display different combinations of two basic temporal patterns: 

an early fry outmigration downstream into intertidal areas in the early spring, followed 

by a component that rears for a longer period in natal tributary habitat and outmigrates 

in late spring/early summer (Cooney and Holzer 2011). Ocean-type juveniles make 

extensive use of the estuary. Rivers with well-developed estuaries, such as the 

Columbia, are able to sustain large populations of ocean-type salmon. Subyearling 

Chinook salmon can be found in the Columbia River estuary during every month of the 

year. After spending weeks or months rearing in the estuary, Lower Columbia River fall 

Chinook salmon migrate northward into ocean waters off of Washington, British 

Columbia, and Southeast Alaska. Most fall Chinook salmon remain at sea from 1 to 5 

years (more commonly 3 to 5 years) and return to spawn at 2 to 6 years of age. They 

return to fresh water in late summer or fall and usually spawn within a few weeks

(LCFRB 2010a).

7.1.1.3 Late-Fall (“Bright”) Chinook Salmon Life History

Late-fall Chinook salmon, commonly referred to as “brights,” generally return later than 

tule fall Chinook salmon, are less mature when they enter the Columbia, and spawn 

later in the year. Late-fall Chinook salmon enter the Columbia River from August to 

October and spawn from November to January, with peak spawning in mid-November. 

Late-fall Chinook salmon return to Washington’s Lewis River and the Sandy River in 

Oregon.1 Late-fall Chinook salmon exhibit a stream-type life history (LCFRB 2010a).

 1 In addition, bright fall Chinook salmon that originate from out-of-ESU hatchery fish spawn in the 

Columbia River mainstem immediately downstream of Bonneville Dam and in the Wind and White Salmon 

subbasins; these fish are not part of the Lower Columbia River ESU and are not addressed in this recovery 

plan. Natural-origin Lower Columbia River bright Chinook are referred to as the “lower river wild” stock in 

the US v. Oregon process. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-4

Figure 7-2. Life Cycle of Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon

(Source: LCFRB 2010a)

7.1.2 Historical Distribution and Population Structure of LCR Chinook Salmon

The WLC TRT identified a total of 32 historical independent populations in this ESU: 

21 fall, two late-fall, and nine spring-run populations. Table 7-2 lists these populations 

and indicates core populations (which historically were highly productive) and genetic 

legacy populations (which represent important historical genetic diversity). Figures 7-3, 

7-4, and 7-5 show the geographical distribution of Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon strata and populations. 

Up through 2008, 17 artificial propagation programs produced Chinook salmon 

considered to be part of this ESU. In 2009, the Elochoman tule fall Chinook salmon 

program was discontinued, and in 2011, NMFS recommended removing this program 

from the ESU (76 Federal Register 50448). Four new fall Chinook salmon programs have 

been initiated: Deep River Net-Pen Fall Chinook, Klaskanine Hatchery Fall Chinook, 

Bonneville Hatchery Tule Fall Chinook, and Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery 

Tule Fall Chinook. These programs are changes in release locations for fish produced at, 

and previously released from, existing hatchery programs that are part of the ESU. In 

2011, NMFS recommended including these programs in the ESU (76 Federal Register

50448; Jones et al. 2011). Table 7-3 shows the 20 Chinook salmon hatchery programs that 

currently are included in the ESU. For a list of Chinook salmon hatchery programs not 

included in the ESU, see Jones (2011). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-5

Table 7-2

Historical LCR Chinook Salmon Populations

Stratum Historical Populations Core or Genetic Legacy Populations

Cascade spring Upper Cowlitz (WA) Core, genetic legacy

Cispus (WA) Core

Tilton (WA)

Toutle (WA) 

Kalama (WA)

NF Lewis (WA) Core

Sandy (OR) Core, genetic legacy

Gorge spring White Salmon (WA) Core

Hood (OR)

Coast fall Youngs Bay (OR) 

Grays/Chinook (WA)

Big Creek (OR) Core

Elochoman (WA) Core

Clatskanie (OR) 

Mill (WA) 

Scappoose (OR)

Cascade fall Lower Cowlitz (WA) Core

Upper Cowlitz (WA)

Toutle (WA) Core

Coweeman (WA) Genetic legacy

Kalama (WA) 

Lewis (WA) Genetic legacy

Salmon Creek (WA)

Clackamas (OR) Core

Sandy River early (OR)

Washougal (WA) 

Gorge fall Lower Gorge (WA & OR) 

Upper Gorge (WA & OR) Core

White Salmon (WA) Core

Hood (OR)

Cascade late fall Lewis (WA) Core, genetic legacy

Sandy (OR) Core, genetic legacy

Source: McElhany et al. (2003), Myers et al. (2006).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-6

Table 7-3

Artificial Propagation Programs Included in the LCR Chinook Salmon ESU

Run Type Washington Programs Oregon Programs

Spring Chinook Upper Cowlitz

Cispus

Friends of the Cowlitz

Kalama

Lewis River

Fish First

Sandy River

Tule Fall Chinook* Sea Resources

Cowlitz (Deep River NetPen)

North Fork Toutle

Kalama 

Washougal 

Spring Creek (Little White 

Salmon and Bonneville)

Big Creek 

Astoria High School (STEP)

Warrenton High 

School (STEP)

Klaskanine

* The last returns from the Elochoman tule fall Chinook hatchery program are expected in 2013. This 

program has been part of the ESU in the past but was discontinued in 2009, so it is no longer included in the 

ESU.

Source: 70 Federal Register 37177, 76 Federal Register 50448, and Jones (2011).

7.2 Baseline Population Status for LCR Chinook Salmon

Populations of Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon have declined substantially from 

historical levels. Out of the 32 populations that make up this ESU, only the two late-fall 

runs—the North Fork Lewis and Sandy—are considered viable. Most populations (26 

out of 32) have a very low probability of persistence over the next 100 years (and some 

are extirpated or nearly so (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010, Ford 2011).2 Five of the six strata 

fall significantly short of the WLC TRT criteria for viability; one stratum, Cascade latefall, meets the WLC TRT criteria (see Figures 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5).

Low abundance, poor productivity, losses of spatial structure, and reduced diversity all

contribute to the very low persistence probability for most Lower Columbia River 

 2 As described in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, the WLC TRT recommended methods for evaluating the status of 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. The TRT’s approach is based on evaluating the 

population parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity and then integrating 

those assessments into an overall assessment of population persistence probability. As also described in 

Section 5.1, management unit recovery planners evaluated their respective populations’ baseline status in a 

manner generally consistent with the WLC TRT’s approach, with the baseline period being either circa 1999 

(for Washington populations) or 2006-2008 (for Oregon populations). Unless otherwise noted, NMFS and 

the management unit planners believe that those assessments accurately reflect the status of the population 

at that time; the assessments are the basis for the summaries presented here and are consistent with the 

conclusions of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in its Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and 

Steelhead Listed under the Endangered Species Act (Ford 2011). New information on population status will 

continue to accumulate over time and will be taken into account as needed to reflect the best available 

science regarding a population’s status.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-7

Chinook salmon populations. Many of the ESU’s populations are believed to have very 

low abundance of natural-origin spawners (100 fish or fewer), which increases genetic 

and demographic risks. Other populations have higher total abundance, but several of 

these also have high proportions of hatchery-origin spawners. Particularly for tule fall 

Chinook salmon populations, poor data quality prevents precise quantification of 

population abundance and productivity; data quality has been poor because of 

inadequate spawning surveys and the presence of unmarked hatchery-origin spawners

(Ford 2011).3 Spatial structure has been substantially reduced in several populations. 

Low abundance, past broodstock transfers and other legacy hatchery effects, and 

ongoing hatchery straying may have reduced genetic diversity within and among Lower 

Columbia River Chinook salmon populations. Hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally 

may also have reduced population productivity (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). 

7.2.1 Baseline Status of LCR Spring Chinook Salmon

Six out of the nine spring Chinook salmon populations that are part of this ESU are 

estimated to have a very low probability of persistence (see Figure 7-3). Two—the White 

Salmon and Hood River populations—are considered extirpated, either because dams 

have blocked or impeded access to historical spawning habitat and/or because it is 

assumed that no remnants exist either in a hatchery or in the wild.4 No spring Chinook 

salmon population is considered viable at baseline levels. 

The very low persistence probabilities (and, in some cases, the likely extirpation) of most 

spring Chinook salmon populations are a function of losses in abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity. The spatial structure of most spring Chinook salmon

populations has been severely reduced by tributary dams that block access to core 

headwater spawning areas. In areas that remain accessible, distribution has been limited 

by habitat degradation. The genetic and life history diversity of spring Chinook salmon

also has likely been greatly reduced, primarily as a result of population bottlenecks 

within the natural populations, habitat loss, and hatchery practices. Although hatchery 

programs are an important conservation tool for spring Chinook populations in some 

subbasins—primarily the Cowlitz and Lewis, where hatchery programs are serving as 

genetic reserves for use in reintroduction program—the long-term effects of the high 

fraction of hatchery-origin spawners in natural production areas is a concern (LCFRB 

2010a, ODFW 2010).

 3 Both Oregon and Washington have recently begun efforts to identify and address data gaps, and all 

hatchery fall Chinook salmon are now marked.

4 A reintroduction program for spring Chinook salmon in the Hood subbasin is under way using out-of-ESU 

broodstock. Some natural production is occurring there. At this time, the origin of that natural production is 

unknown. For additional discussion of this reintroduction program, see Section 7.4.3.6.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-8

Figure 7-3. Baseline Status of Lower Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon Populations

7.2.2 Baseline Status of LCR Tule Fall Chinook Salmon

Population status assessments conducted by Oregon and Washington management unit 

planners and based on the WLC TRT's recommended methods and criteria indicate that 

all 21 Lower Columbia River tule fall Chinook salmon populations have a baseline 

persistence probability of low or very low (see Figure 7-4) (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010).

Spawner abundance and productivity estimates for these populations are generally 

based on expanded index-reach spawner counts and associated carcass sampling. In the 

past, data series used to estimate the hatchery proportion for most tule populations have 

been based on limited recoveries and, as a result, have had high uncertainty. Both the 

Oregon and Washington management unit plans identify obtaining improved estimates 

of annual abundance and wild/hatchery proportions of spawners as a short-term highpriority. In recent years, marking rates of tule Chinook salmon released from Lower 

Columbia River hatchery programs have significantly increased, facilitating estimates of 

hatchery-origin fish on natural spawning grounds. In addition, managers have reviewed 

carcass sampling efforts and expanded them in selected areas. Expansion methodologies 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-9

used to estimate total spawner abundance based on sub-area counts are also being 

reviewed and evaluated against mark-recapture methods. The Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans will incorporate improved estimates of spawner abundance and 

productivity into periodic updates of population persistence probability.

Declines in persistence probability among tule fall Chinook salmon are related primarily 

to losses in abundance, productivity, and diversity. With the exception of the Upper 

Cowlitz population, whose access to historical habitat is blocked by tributary dams,5

Lower Columbia River tule fall Chinook salmon populations generally can access most 

areas of historical spawning habitat. However, the abundance of most natural 

populations is very low. Abundance and genetic and life history diversity likely have

been reduced through habitat degradation, historically high harvest rates, historical 

stock transfers, pervasive hatchery effects, and small population bottlenecks in the 

natural populations. In addition, hatchery-origin fish spawning naturally may have 

decreased population productivity. Hatchery-origin fish make up a large fraction of the 

spawners in most natural production areas. Exceptions are the Coweeman and East Fork 

Lewis subbasins, where hatchery influence has been relatively low. These two 

populations are considered genetic legacy populations (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010).

Coast stratum populations in particular have been subject to high levels of non-local 

hatchery broodstock, which raises questions about the extent to which tule Chinook 

salmon currently spawning there represent the genetic diversity and adaptation that 

was originally present. The probable lack of locally adapted populations may be a 

contributing factor to the apparent low productivity of these populations; however, we 

have no direct information on the level of local adaptation in these populations, and we 

do not know the geographic scale at which local adaptation occurred historically (an 

uncertainty that is not limited to this stratum or ESU).

To be consistent with the management unit plans and the methodologies recommended 

by the WLC TRT, this recovery plan uses status information from the Oregon and 

Washington management unit plans (ODFW 2010 and LCFRB 2010a) in describing 

baseline status for Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon populations. However, 

two additional analyses have been conducted in recent years to inform Biological 

Opinions related to harvest. Ford et al. (2007) describes the results of two quantitative 

population viability models used to evaluate the probability of persistence for three tule 

populations—the Coweeman, Grays/Chinook, and Lewis—under alternative 

assumptions about future harvest rates. NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

(NWFSC 2010) used a life-cycle modeling approach to analyze the impact of various 

harvest rates on population risk, taking into consideration the effects of hatcheries, 

habitat conditions, and a subset of recovery actions; this assessment evaluated eight of 

the tule populations targeted for high persistence probability.

The various assessments show considerable agreement about the status of Lower 

Columbia tule populations; for example, all of the assessments suggest that the Coast 

stratum tule Chinook salmon populations have low or very low probabilities of 

persistence, and most of the assessments suggest that the Coweeman and Lewis tule 

populations have slightly higher persistence probabilities than other tule populations. 

 5 Until recently, Condit Dam blocked the White Salmon population’s access to historical habitat. Condit 

Dam was breached in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-10

However, the assessments sometimes differ in their estimates of the status of individual 

populations, with Ford et al. (2007) and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (2010) 

suggesting higher persistence probabilities for some populations than the management 

unit plans. It is likely that these differences are due in part to the different purposes, 

assumptions, baseline dates, data sets, and applications of data sets among the 

assessments.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (2010) modeling suggests that there may be 

important distinctions in viability within the populations categorized by ODFW (2010) 

and LCFRB (2010a) as having a low or very low probability of persistence—especially in

the populations’ ability to sustain harvest. Populations modeled by the NWFSC 

generally fell into three categories: (1) relatively large populations with relatively low 

projected quasi-extinction risks under current habitat conditions, reduced harvest rate 

scenarios, and a range of hatchery impact assumptions, (2) those with very high current 

or past hatchery and habitat impacts that modeling suggests could not be naturally selfsustaining without substantial improvements, even with no harvest, and (3) populations 

that are intermediate between these two and could possibly sustain themselves without 

hatchery input at low harvest rates under current conditions and under some modeled 

assumptions but not others. 

In the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (2010) modeling, the Coweeman, Lewis, and 

Washougal populations fall into the first category, while the Elochoman/Skamokawa, 

Clatskanie, and Scappoose populations fall into the second category; however, LCFRB’s 

(2010a) population viability analysis suggests that the Lewis and 

Elochoman/Skamokawa fit more appropriately in the intermediate category, and that 

the Lower Cowlitz and Grays/Chinook populations fall into the first and second 

categories, respectively. 

These differences in results point to the need for better understanding of the factors 

driving the very low productivity of some populations, including the influence of 

hatchery-origin spawners on natural tule populations, the impact of harvest on different 

populations, and the ability of current and projected habitat conditions to support selfsustaining populations. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-11

Figure 7-4. Baseline Status of Lower Columbia River Fall (Tule) Chinook Salmon Populations, 

per Management Unit Plans

7.2.3 Baseline Status of LCR Late-Fall (Bright) Chinook Salmon

The two late-fall Chinook salmon populations—North Fork Lewis and Sandy—are the 

only populations in this ESU whose baseline probability of persistence is estimated to be 

high (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). Both populations have remained largely uninfluenced 

by hatchery production and have not experienced the population bottlenecks seen in 

most tule fall Chinook salmon populations.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-12

Figure 7-5. Baseline Status of Columbia River Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Populations

For additional discussion of Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon population status, 

see the management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, pp. 6-7 through 6-13; ODFW 2010, pp. 54-

55; and NMFS 2013, p. 4-1), Ford (2011), and, for Lower Columbia River tule fall 

Chinook salmon, Ford et al. (2007) and Northwest Fisheries Science Center (2010).

7.3 Target Status and Conservation Gaps for LCR Chinook 

Salmon Populations

Table 7-4 shows the baseline and target status for each Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon population, along with historical and target abundance. Local recovery planners 

coordinated with NMFS in making decisions about the target status for each population, 

taking into consideration opportunities for improvement in view of historical 

production, current habitat conditions and potential, and the desire to accommodate 

objectives such as maintaining harvest opportunities. (Note: the target statuses in Table 

7-4 are the same as the persistence probabilities in the recovery scenario presented in 

Table 3-1.) As described in Chapter 5, although Oregon and Washington recovery 

planners used somewhat different methodologies to estimate baseline status and target 

abundance and productivity, the management unit planners agree that the 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-13

methodologies led to similar conclusions regarding the generally low baseline status for 

most Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon populations.

Very large improvements are needed in the persistence probability of most spring and 

tule fall Chinook salmon populations if the ESU is to achieve recovery. For example, 

among the nine historical spring Chinook salmon populations, five are targeted for high 

or better persistence probability; four of these have baseline persistence probabilities of 

low or very low, or are extirpated or nearly so. Nine out of 21 tule fall Chinook salmon 

populations are targeted for high or better probability of persistence; all of these have a 

baseline persistence probability of very low or low. Some level of effort will be needed 

for every population to arrest or reverse long-term declining trends; this is true for 

stabilizing populations, which are expected to remain at their baseline persistence 

probability of low or very low, as well as for the two late-fall Chinook salmon

populations, which need minimal improvement only. For most populations, meeting 

recovery objectives will require improvements in all VSP parameters: abundance, 

productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. 

To achieve the recovery scenario for Cascade spring Chinook salmon, populations with 

high or better persistence probabilities must be reestablished in historical habitat 

blocked by tributary hydropower dams in the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and North Fork 

Lewis subbasins (all three of these populations were historically among the most 

productive, and the Upper Cowlitz is also a genetic legacy population), and in the Sandy 

subbasin (a core and genetic legacy population). In this stratum, only the Tilton 

population is expected to remain at its baseline persistence probability of very low, in 

part because of lower quality habitat. The Toutle spring Chinook salmon population is 

targeted to move from very low to medium persistence probability; this target status 

reflects uncertainties about how much spring Chinook salmon production the Toutle 

subbasin supported historically and concerns about the extent to which legacy effects of 

the Mount St. Helens eruption limit habitat productivity. The Kalama population is 

targeted to achieve low persistence probability, because habitat there was probably not 

as productive historically for spring Chinook salmon and because of the intent to 

maintain a fishery enhancement hatchery program there.

Achieving target status in the Gorge spring Chinook stratum will depend on 

reestablishing populations in the White Salmon and Hood River systems, where the 

historical populations are considered extirpated. Removal of Condit Dam in the White 

Salmon subbasin enhances prospects for recovery there, although questions remain 

about historical production and the potential to reestablish a population. (The dam was 

breached in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012.) These questions 

led to a target of low-plus persistence probability for White Salmon spring Chinook 

salmon. The Oregon management unit plan is more optimistic that a viable spring 

Chinook salmon population can be reestablished in the Hood subbasin.6

Among the seven fall Chinook salmon populations in the Coast stratum, four are 

targeted for high persistence probability, including the Elochoman/Skamokawa, which 

is one of two core populations in the stratum. Big Creek, which is the other core 

 6 Current reintroduction efforts in the Hood subbasin are using an out-of-ESU hatchery stock. See additional 

discussion of this issue below, in Section 7.4.3.6.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-14

population, and the Youngs Bay population are targeted for low probability of 

persistence (up from very low for Youngs Bay). This decision reflects a strategic choice 

to provide harvest opportunity through terminal fisheries targeting hatchery fish in the 

Youngs Bay and Big Creek areas; consequently, the proportion of hatchery-origin 

spawners (pHOS) in these populations is expected to remain high. The Grays/Chinook

population is targeted to move from very low to medium-plus persistence probability; 

this target status reflects concerns about potential habitat productivity and the ability to 

control stray hatchery fish, particularly from the Youngs Bay terminal fishery program. 

In the Cascade fall Chinook stratum, four of ten populations are targeted for high-plus 

persistence probability, including the Toutle and Clackamas, which historically were 

among the most productive, and the Coweeman and Lewis, which are genetic legacy 

populations. Two populations are expected to remain at their very low baseline 

persistence probability: Salmon Creek, which is in a highly urbanized subbasin with 

limited habitat recovery potential, and the Upper Cowlitz, where reintroduction of 

spring Chinook salmon is the focus of recovery efforts (although fall Chinook are being 

passed into the Upper Cowlitz subbasin, as of 2010, in an effort to enhance that 

population). 

In the Gorge fall Chinook stratum, only one of four populations—the Hood—is targeted 

for high persistence probability, with the other three populations targeted for medium 

persistence probability. In addition, the Oregon management unit plan notes that the 

feasibility of achieving the target status for the Hood population is low. Constraints to 

recovery for fall Chinook salmon in the Gorge include the small amount of historical and 

current habitat (and thus the limited options for restoration); anthropogenic impacts that 

are unlikely to change in the near future (e.g., inundation by Bonneville Reservoir and 

roads that restrict access to habitat); high uncertainty in the data and analyses for small 

populations7; and potentially inaccurate designation of population structure for this 

stratum. The Oregon management unit plan states that most of these issues are related 

to the population designation and suggests reevaluating the Gorge stratum population 

structure for all species (ODFW 2010).

The two populations of late-fall Chinook salmon are viable at their baseline levels, but 

the recovery scenario calls for the persistence probability of the Sandy population to be 

raised from high to very high. 

If the scenario in Table 7-4 were achieved, it would exceed the WLC TRT’s stratum-level 

viability criteria in the Coast and Cascade fall strata, the Cascade spring stratum, and the 

Cascade late-fall stratum (see Table 7-11).8 However, the scenario for Gorge spring and 

Gorge fall Chinook salmon does not meet WLC TRT criteria because, within each 

 7 In the method used by the WLC TRT and management unit planners to establish abundance goals, target 

abundance is based to some extent on the gap between current and historical abundance. If the historical 

abundance of Gorge stratum Chinook salmon populations has been significantly overestimated, then the 

abundance needed to achieve target status may also be overestimated (ODFW 2010).

8 For example, in the Cascade fall stratum, four populations are targeted for high or very high persistence 

probability, and, using the WLC TRT’s scoring system, the average viability score for all populations in the 

stratum would be 2.35. As discussed in Section 2.5.4, the TRT’s criteria for high probability of stratum 

persistence require that two or more populations be viable and that the average score for all populations in 

the stratum be 2.25 or higher. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-15

stratum, the scenario targets only one population (the Hood) for high persistence 

probability. Exceeding the WLC TRT criteria, particularly in the Cascade fall and 

Cascade spring Chinook strata, was intentional on the part of local recovery planners to 

compensate for uncertainties about meeting the WLC TRT’s criteria in the Gorge fall and 

spring strata. In addition, multiple spring Chinook salmon populations are prioritized 

for aggressive recovery efforts to balance risks associated with the uncertainty of success 

in reintroducing spring Chinook salmon populations above tributary dams in the 

Cowlitz and Lewis systems. (Delisting criteria for the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon ESU are described in Section 3.2 and below in Section 7.7.) 

Figures 7-6 and 7-7 display the population-level conservation gaps for tule fall Chinook, 

late-fall Chinook, and spring Chinook graphically. The conservation gap reflects the 

magnitude of improvement needed to move a population from its baseline status to the 

target status. For additional discussion of target status and conservation gaps for Lower 

Columbia River Chinook salmon populations, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 

2010a, pp. 6-13 to 6-15 and ODFW 2010, pp. 148-150).

Given the structure of the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU, with its three 

major adult run components and both ocean- and stream-type juvenile life histories 

represented, the remainder of the Chinook salmon recovery analysis is broken down by 

run component: spring, fall, and late-fall. Limiting factor summaries, threat impacts, and 

recovery strategies at the run component level are nested appropriately within these 

three larger sections. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-16

Table 7-4

Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR Chinook Salmon Populations

Baseline Persistence 

Probability9 Abundance

Stratum Population Contribution A&P S D Net

Target 

Persistence 

Probability

Historical Baseline10 Target

Cascade Upper Cowlitz (WA)C, G Primary VL L M VL H+ 22,000 300 1,800

spring Cispus (WA)C Primary VL L M VL H+ 7,800 150 1,800

Tilton (WA) Stabilizing VL VL VL VL VL 5,400 100 100

Toutle (WA) Contributing VL H L VL M 3,100 100 1,100

Kalama (WA) Contributing VL H L VL L 4,900 100 300

NF Lewis (WA)C Primary VL L M VL H 15,700 300 1,500

Sandy (OR)C, G Primary M M M M H 26,899 714 1,230

Gorge White Salmon (WA)C Contributing VL VL VL VL L+ -- 11 < 50 500

spring Hood (OR) Primary VL VH VL VL VH 15,041 327 1,493

Coast Youngs Bay (OR) Stabilizing L VH L L L 15,115 379 505

fall Grays/Chinook (WA) Contributing VL H VL VL M+ 800 < 50 1,000

Big Creek (OR)C Contributing VL H L VL L 8,785 216 577

Elochoman/Skamokawa 

(WA)C

Primary VL H L VL H 3,000 < 50 1,500

Clatskanie (OR) Primary VL VH L VL H 14,354 6 1,277

Mill/Abernathy/Germany 

(WA)

Primary VL H L VL H 2,500 50 900

Scappoose (OR) Primary L H L L H 12,515 356 1,222

Cascade Lower Cowlitz (WA)C Contributing VL H M VL M+ 24,000 500 3,000

fall Upper Cowlitz (WA) Stabilizing VL VL M VL VL 28,000 0 --

 9 A&P = Abundance and productivity, S = spatial structure, and D = genetic and life history diversity. Net = overall persistence probability of the population. VL = 

very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high, VH = very high.

10 Baseline abundance was estimated as described in Section 5.1 and does not equal observed natural-origin spawner counts. The baseline is a modeled abundance 

that represents 100-year forward projections under conditions representative of a recent baseline period using a population viability analysis that is functionally 

equivalent to the risk analyses in McElhany et al. (2007). Projections generally assume conditions similar to those from 1974 to 2004. Oregon numbers reflect 

fishery reductions between the 1990s and about 2004, while Washington numbers reflect fishery impacts prevalent in the period immediately prior to listing in 

1999. 

11 “—“ indicates that no data are available from which to make a quantitative assessment.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-17

Table 7-4

Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR Chinook Salmon Populations

Baseline Persistence 

Probability9 Abundance

Stratum Population Contribution A&P S D Net

Target 

Persistence 

Probability

Historical Baseline10 Target

Toutle (WA)C Primary VL H M VL H+ 11,000 < 50 4,000

Coweeman (WA)G Primary L H H L H+ 3,500 100 900

Kalama (WA) Contributing VL H M VL M 2,700 < 50 500

Lewis (WA)G Primary VL H H VL H+ 2,600 < 50 1,500

Salmon Creek (WA) Stabilizing VL H M VL VL -- < 50 --

Clackamas (OR)C Contributing VL VH L VL M 22,554 558 1,551

Sandy (OR) Contributing VL M L VL M 6,237 144 1,031

Washougal (WA) Primary VL H M VL H+ 2,600 < 50 1,200

Gorge Lower Gorge (WA & OR) Contributing VL M L VL M -- < 50 1,200

fall Upper Gorge (WA & OR)C Contributing VL M L VL M -- < 50 1,200

White Salmon (WA)C Contributing VL L L VL M -- < 50 500

Hood (OR) Primary VL VH L VL H* 1,391 33 1,245

Cascade NF Lewis (WA)C, G Primary VH H H VH VH 23,000 7,300 7,300

late fall Sandy (OR)C, G Primary VH M M H VH 10,000 1,794 3,561

C = Core populations, meaning those that historically were the most productive.

G = Genetic legacy populations, which best represent historical genetic diversity.

*Oregon’s analysis indicates a low probability of meeting the delisting objective of high persistence probability for this population.

Source: LCFRB (2010a) and ODFW (2010).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-18

Figure 7-6. Conservation Gaps for LCR Spring Chinook Salmon Populations: Difference between 

Baseline and Target Status

Source: LCFRB 2010a.

Figure 7-7. Conservation Gaps for LCR Fall and Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Populations: 

Difference between Baseline and Target Status

Source: LCFRB 2010a.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-19

7.4 Spring Chinook Salmon Analysis: Limiting Factors, Threat 

Reductions, and Recovery Strategies

7.4.1 Spring Chinook Salmon Limiting Factors

Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon have been—and continue to be—affected 

by a legacy of habitat degradation, hydropower impacts, harvest, and hatchery 

production that, together, have reduced the persistence probability of all Lower 

Columbia River spring Chinook salmon populations. One of the largest factors limiting 

this component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU has been the 

existence of tributary dams that block access to core headwater spawning areas in upper 

subbasins.12 Spatial structure, productive potential, and survival are further constrained 

by widespread degradation of tributary habitat in downstream areas. In addition, the 

high historical harvest rates and the effects of hatchery fish on natural populations have 

undermined the genetic and life history diversity of spring Chinook salmon populations 

and contributed to significant losses in production and abundance. 

Table 7-5 and the text that follows summarize baseline limiting factors and threats for 

Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon strata based on population-specific 

limiting factors and threats identified in the management unit plans. In cases where 

conditions have changed significantly since the management unit plans’ analyses of 

limiting factors and threats (e.g., if harvest rates have dropped or a dam is no longer 

present), this is noted in the text. Unless otherwise noted, NMFS agrees that the 

management unit plans’ identification of limiting factors provide a credible hypothesis 

for understanding population performance and identifying management actions.

Because the individual management unit plans used somewhat different terms in 

identifying limiting factors, NMFS has translated those terms into standardized and 

more general terminology taken from a NMFS “data dictionary” of possible ecological 

concerns that could affect salmon and steelhead species (Hamm 2012; see Section 5.4). In 

addition, in Table 7-5, NMFS has rolled up the population-specific limiting factors (see 

Appendix H) to the stratum level—a process that has resulted in some loss of specificity. 

In addition, each management unit plan used a different approach for identifying 

limiting factors and threats (see Section 5.3).One difference relevant to the crosswalk is 

that although the Oregon management unit plan identified primary and secondary 

limiting factors for each population in each threat category,13 the Washington 

management unit plan categorized limiting factors in this way only for habitat-related 

 12 Steel and Sheer (2003) analyzed the number of stream kilometers of potential habitat historically and 

currently available to salmon populations in the lower Columbia River. For several spring Chinook salmon 

populations, historical habitat is almost completely blocked (100 percent in the Cispus and Tilton subbasins, 

99 percent in the Upper Cowlitz, 76 percent in the Lewis, and—at the time of the analysis—100 percent in 

the White Salmon subbasin. Condit Dam, on the White Salmon River, was breached in October 2011 and 

completely removed in September 2012, thus eliminating the major blockage in that subbasin.). In the Toutle 

and Kalama subbasins much lower but still significant proportions of habitat are blocked (31 percent 

blocked in the Toutle and 23 percent in the Sandy). In the Kalama subbasin only 6 percent is blocked, and in 

the Hood, 1 percent. 

13 In the Oregon management unit plan, primary limiting factors are those that have the greatest impact and 

secondary limiting factors have a lesser but still significant impact.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-20

limiting factors, and the White Salmon plan and the estuary module did not use the 

primary and secondary terminology. For the crosswalk and this table, NMFS assigned 

primary and secondary status to non-habitat limiting factors for Washington 

populations (based on the Washington management unit plan’s quantification of threat 

impacts and the professional judgment of Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s staff 

and consultants). For populations that historically spawned in the White Salmon 

subbasin, NMFS staff inferred primary and secondary designations based on discussion 

in the Washington and White Salmon management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, NMFS 

2013). It is likely that some apparent distinctions in results between Washington and 

Oregon populations are artifacts of differences in limiting factor assessment 

methodologies and not an actual difference in conditions or their effects on salmon and 

steelhead populations. In addition, there is not necessarily a bright line between primary 

and secondary limiting factor designations. Nevertheless, NMFS believes that the 

designations are useful, particularly for looking across ESUs and populations and 

identifying patterns (see Chapter 4).

The management unit plans provide more detail on limiting factors and threats affecting 

Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, including magnitude, spatial scale, and 

relative impact (see LCFRB 2010a, Chapter 3 and various sections of Volume II; ODFW 

2010, pp. 116-128; and NMFS 2013, Chapter 5). For a regional perspective on limiting 

factors and threats that affect multiple salmon and steelhead ESUs, see Chapter 4 of this 

recovery plan. For a description of the data dictionary, the approach NMFS used to 

correlate management unit terms for limiting factors with the standardized NMFS 

terminology at the population scale, and the approach for rolling up from the 

population to the stratum scale, see Section 5.4 and Appendix H.

Management unit recovery planners in Oregon and Washington recognized that six 

major categories of manageable threats—tributary habitat, estuary habitat, hydropower, 

harvest, hatcheries, and predation—were useful as an organizing construct for grouping 

limiting factors, quantifying impacts on population productivity, and determining how 

much different categories of threats would need to be reduced to close the gap between 

baseline and target population status. Planners in both Washington and Oregon 

quantified the impacts of each of these major threat categories on population status, 

along with a reduction in each impact that would be consistent with achieving 

population target status. The results of that analysis are presented in Sections 7.4.2, 7.5., 

and 7.6.2 and provide a related but slightly different perspective on limiting factors. The 

threat reduction targets also allow actions to be scaled to achieve a specific impact 

reduction, and to be linked to monitoring and performance benchmarks.

Table 7-5

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Spring Chinook Salmon: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Spring Gorge Spring

Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Riparian Condition Past and/or current land 

use practices All

Primary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-21

Table 7-5

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Spring Chinook Salmon: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Spring Gorge Spring

Channel Structure and 

Form

Past and/or current land 

use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All

Primary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Peripheral and Transitional 

Habitats: Side Channel and 

Wetland Conditions

Past and/or current land 

use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All

Primary for

juveniles in all 

populations

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Peripheral and Transitional 

Habitats: Floodplain 

Conditions

Past and/or current land 

use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All

Primary for

juveniles in all 

populations

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Sediment Conditions

Past and/or current land 

use practices/ 

transportation corridor 

All

Secondary for 

Sandy juveniles, 

primary for 

juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that impair 

riparian function/decrease 

streamflow, dams

A,P,D

Primary for Tilton 

and Toutle

juveniles, 

secondary for 

Kalama and North 

Fork Lewis

juveniles

Water Quantity (Flow)

Dams, land use, irrigation, 

municipal, and hatchery 

withdrawals

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors14

Toxic Contaminants

Agricultural chemicals, 

urban and industrial 

practices

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations 

Food15

(Shift from macrodetrital- to 

microdetrital-based food 

web)

Dam reservoirs All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

 14 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this table and Section 7.4.1.2 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine 

limiting factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly 

revised) through adaptive management.

15 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-22

Table 7-5

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Spring Chinook Salmon: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Spring Gorge Spring

Peripheral and Transitional 

Habitats: Estuary Condition 

Past and/or current land 

use 

practices/transportation 

corridor, mainstem dams

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Channel Structure and 

Form

Past and/or current land 

use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Sediment Conditions

Past and/or current land 

use 

practices/transportation 

corridor, dams

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that impair 

riparian function/decrease 

streamflow, dam 

reservoirs

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quantity (Flow) Columbia River mainstem 

dams All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Hydropower Limiting Factors

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Bonneville Dam All

Secondary for 

White Salmon and 

Hood

Habitat Quantity 

(Inundation) Bonneville Dam All Secondary for Hood juveniles16

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Tributary dams All

Primary for Upper 

Cowlitz, Cispus, 

Tilton, and North 

Fork Lewis adults 

and juveniles, 

secondary for 

Sandy adults and 

juveniles

Primary for White 

Salmon adults and 

juveniles, 

secondary for Hood

adults and 

juveniles

Harvest Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Fisheries A,D

Primary for Upper 

Cowlitz, Cispus, 

Tilton, Toutle, 

Kalama, and North 

Fork Lewis adults, 

secondary for 

Sandy adults

Primary for Hood

adults, secondary 

for White Salmon

adults

 16 The exact extent to which Bonneville Reservoir inundated habitats for any species is unknown. Some 

biologists have hypothesized impacts to spring Chinook salmon as a result of inundation. Based on 

spawning habitat preferences, it is likely that impacts of inundation were greatest on fall Chinook and chum 

salmon.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-23

Table 7-5

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Spring Chinook Salmon: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Spring Gorge Spring

Hatchery Limiting Factors

Food17

Smolts from all Columbia 

Basin hatcheries 

competing for food and 

space in the estuary 

All

Secondary for all populations

Population Diversity Stray hatchery fish 

interbreeding with wild fish A,P,D Primary for adults in all populations

Primary for adults 

in all populations 

Predation Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Land use A,P,D

Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Direct Mortality Dams A,P,D

Secondary for 

adults (marine 

mammals) and 

juveniles (nonsalmonid fish) in all 

populations

7.4.1.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Because spring Chinook salmon are stream-type salmon that typically rear in tributary 

reaches for a full year, they depend heavily on tributary habitat conditions for their 

survival (LCFRB 2010a). Loss and degradation of tributary habitat is one of the main 

limiting factors for Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, along with blocked 

access to historical spawning habitat as a result of tributary hydropower dams (see Table

7-5).

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions and degraded floodplain habitat have 

significant negative impacts on juvenile spring Chinook salmon throughout the ESU and 

are identified as primary limiting factors for all Cascade spring populations and 

secondary factors for all Gorge spring populations. Extensive channelization, diking, 

wetland conversion, stream clearing, and, in some subbasins, gravel extraction have 

barred spring Chinook salmon from historically productive habitats and simplified 

much of the remaining tributary habitats, weakening watershed processes that are 

essential to the maintenance of healthy ecosystems. Degraded riparian conditions and 

channel structure and form issues also are primary limiting factors for all Cascade 

spring populations and secondary factors for all Gorge spring populations within the 

 17 Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia Basin hatcheries 

may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and habitat space in the estuary. NMFS 

2011a and LCFRB (2010) identified competition for food and space among hatchery and natural-origin 

juveniles in the estuary as a critical uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed 

competition for food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define and describe the 

scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin 

salmon in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore ocean habitats.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-24

ESU. Lack of large woody debris and appropriately sized gravel in the remaining 

accessible tributary habitat has significantly reduced the amount of suitable spawning 

and rearing habitat for spring Chinook salmon. 

Sediment conditions are identified as a primary limiting factor for all Washington 

populations with the exception of the White Salmon, but are considered to be secondary 

for the Oregon portion of the ESU.18 The high density of forest and rural roads in the 

Lower Columbia subdomain, combined with past, and in some cases current, logging 

and other forest management practices and other land use patterns on unstable slopes 

adjacent to riparian habitat, contributes to an abundance of fine sediment in tributary 

streams.19 The resulting excess fine sediment covers spawning gravel, limiting egg 

development and incubation, and increases turbidity. In addition, water quality—

specifically elevated water temperature brought about through land use, lack of 

functioning riparian habitat, and reservoir operations—is a primary limiting factor for 

the Tilton and Toutle populations and a secondary limiting factor for the Kalama and

North Fork Lewis populations. The influence of water storage and release operations, 

land use, and water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal use, and hatchery operations 

has led to altered hydrology and flow timing being identified as secondary factors for all 

spring Chinook salmon populations. 

In the Cascade stratum, tributary habitat limiting factors are largely the same as those 

described above for all spring Chinook salmon populations. Land uses that have led to 

the conditions limiting habitat productivity in this stratum include forest management 

and timber harvest, agriculture, rural residential and urban development, and gravel 

extraction. A mix of private, state, and federal forest land predominates in the upper 

mainstem and headwater tributaries of the Cascade subbasins, while the lower 

mainstem and tributary reaches of most subbasins are characterized by agricultural and 

rural residential land use, with some urban development. 

A unique issue in the Cascade stratum is legacy effects in the Toutle subbasin of the 1980

Mount St. Helen’s eruption. The North Fork Toutle in particular was heavily affected by 

sedimentation from the eruption. A sediment retention structure (SRS) was constructed 

on the North Fork Toutle in an attempt to prevent continued severe sedimentation of 

stream channels and associated flood conveyance, transportation, and habitat 

degradation problems. The SRS currently blocks access to as many as 50 miles of habitat 

for anadromous fish. Although fish are transported around the structure via a trap and 

haul system, the SRS remains a source of chronic fine sediment to the lower river; this 

reduces habitat quality and has interfered with fish collection at the base of the SRS.

In addition, spawning of Sandy spring Chinook salmon is negatively affected by 

impaired gravel recruitment related to the City of Portland’s Bull Run water 

system dams.

In the Gorge spring Chinook stratum, habitat limiting factors are generally the same as 

those described for all spring Chinook salmon populations, although tributary habitat 

 18 This distinction is likely an artifact of differences in limiting factor assessment processes between the two 

states and not an actual physical difference in sediment conditions in tributary streams or their effects on 

Chinook populations. 

19 By itself, road density is not necessarily a good measure of delivery of fine sediment to streams.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-25

limiting factors are identified as secondary. Riparian, side-channel, wetland, and 

floodplain habitat conditions have been compromised by land uses and inundation by 

the reservoirs behind Bonneville and Condit dams.20 Land uses that have contributed to 

habitat limiting factors include forest management and timber harvest in the upper 

mainstem and headwater reaches of the Hood and White Salmon, and transportation

and rural residential land uses, with some urban development, in lower mainstem and 

tributary reaches. Water quantity issues related to altered hydrology and flow timing—

specifically caused by irrigation withdrawals or diversions or low-head hydro 

diversions—have been identified as secondary limiting factors. 

Habitat within the White Salmon subbasin was altered by the breaching of Condit Dam 

(in October 2011, with full removal in September 2012). Alterations include near-term 

negative effects from sediment release and scouring. Scientists and managers expect 

long-term positive effects as the result of restoration of natural flow regimes and 

sediment transport, but monitoring is needed to evaluate habitat and fish response to 

dam removal, and additional assessment of habitat limiting factors will be needed to 

refine understanding of limiting factors. 

7.4.1.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors21

As stream-type fish, spring Chinook salmon spend less time in the Columbia River 

estuary and plume than do ocean-type salmon such as fall Chinook, yet estuary habitat 

conditions nevertheless play an important role in the survival of spring Chinook salmon 

juveniles, particularly those displaying less dominant life history strategies. Water 

quantity issues related to altered hydrology and flow timing are identified as a primary 

limiting factor for all populations, as is impaired sediment and sand routing; these 

limiting factors are associated with hydroregulation at large storage reservoirs in the 

interior of the Columbia Basin, and, in the case of sediment issues, land uses both past 

and present. Much of the land surrounding the Columbia River estuary is in agricultural 

or rural residential use and has been extensively modified via dikes, levees, bank 

stabilization, and tide gates. Altered hydrology and sediment routing influence habitatforming processes, the quantity and accessibility of habitats such as side channels and 

wetlands, the dynamics of the Columbia River plume, and the estuarine food web.

Channel structure issues, in the form of reduced habitat complexity and diversity, also

are a primary limiting factor for juveniles from all populations. Again, simplification of 

 20 Condit Dam, in the White Salmon subbasin, was breached in October 2011 and completely removed in 

September 2012. 

21 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this section and in Table 7-5 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine 

limiting factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly 

revised) through adaptive management. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-26

channel structure is related to conversion of land to other uses—agricultural, rural 

residential, and as a transportation corridor.

Lack of access to peripheral and transitional habitats, such as side channels and 

wetlands, is a secondary limiting factor for juveniles from all populations, with access 

being impaired by land uses—including the transportation corridor—and by flow 

alterations caused by mainstem dams. Other secondary limiting factors in the estuary 

that affect all spring Chinook populations are exposure to toxic contaminants (from 

urban, industrial, and agricultural sources) and elevated late summer and fall water 

temperatures, which are related to (1) land use practices that impair riparian function or 

decrease streamflow, and (2) large hydropower reservoirs.22 Altered food web dynamics 

involving a transition from a macrodetrital-based food web to a microdetrital-based 

food web also are considered a secondary limiting factor for all populations. 23 These 

changes in the estuarine food web are caused primarily by increased microdetrital 

inputs from hydropower reservoirs and the loss of wetland habitats through diking 

and filling.

7.4.1.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors

Tributary hydropower development is one of the main limiting factors for Lower 

Columbia River spring Chinook salmon (see Table 7-5). In addition, flow management 

operations at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the Columbia Basin (Grand

Coulee, Dworshak, etc.) affect all juvenile Lower Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon in the lower mainstem and estuary, and potentially in the plume—primarily by

altering flow volume and timing. These alterations impair sediment routing, influence 

habitat-forming processes, reduce access to peripheral habitat, and change the dynamics 

of the Columbia River plume and the estuarine food web (see Section 7.4.1.2).24

Moreover, the large reservoirs associated with mainstem dams contribute to elevated 

water temperatures downstream in late summer and fall. Although the management 

unit plans identified temperature impacts of the hydropower system as a secondary 

limiting factor for all juvenile spring Chinook salmon, migration of juvenile spring 

Chinook salmon occurs from March through July and peaks in May (Dawley et al. 1986, 

McCabe et al. 1986, Roegner et al. 2004, Bottom et al. 2008, cited in Figure 2.2 of Carter et 

al. 2009). Thus, it is unlikely that elevated mainstem temperatures are having a 

significant impact on juvenile spring Chinook salmon. For the Hood and White Salmon 

populations, which spawn above Bonneville Dam, passage issues at Bonneville and 

 22 Although the management plans identified temperature impacts as a secondary limiting factor for 

juveniles of all populations, the timing of juvenile spring Chinook salmon migration raises questions about 

the significance of this limiting factor; see Section 7.4.1.3.

23 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 

24 It is likely that flow impacts of the hydropower system affect Lower Columbia River ESUs more through 

changes in habitat-forming processes (including impacts to the plume) and food web impacts than through 

changes in migratory travel time.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-27

inundation of historical spawning habitat by the Bonneville Reservoir are identified as 

secondary limiting factors.25

In the Cascade stratum, tributary hydropower is a primary limiting factor for the Upper 

Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, and North Fork Lewis populations, which historically were 

among the most productive populations but which have been extirpated or nearly so as 

a result of blocked passage. In addition, tributary dams have had adverse impacts on 

downstream habitat through reduced gravel recruitment and other effects. Tributary 

hydropower issues related to downstream passage of juveniles were identified as a 

secondary limiting factor for Sandy spring Chinook salmon, but the PGE Bull Run 

Hydroelectric Project (which consisted of Marmot and Little Sandy dams) was removed 

in 2007-2008, so this is no longer a factor. There are no tributary hydropower facilities in 

the Toutle or Kalama subbasins.26

In the Gorge stratum, the presence of Condit Dam was identified as a primary limiting 

factor for the White Salmon population because, until recently, the dam blocked 

upstream passage to virtually all historical spring Chinook salmon spawning habitat. 

(Condit Dam was breached in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012, 

so this limiting factor has been addressed.) Passage issues related to adult passage at 

Powerdale Dam in the Hood subbasin were identified as a secondary limiting factor, but 

the dam was removed in 2010. In addition, passage issues at Bonneville Dam have 

impacts on the Hood and White Salmon populations. 

7.4.1.4 Harvest Limiting Factors

Harvest-related mortality is identified as a primary limiting factor for all spring Chinook 

salmon populations within the ESU except the Sandy, for which harvest is identified as a 

secondary limiting factor (because ODFW considered it more resilient to the impacts of 

harvest [ODFW 2010]). About three-quarters of the harvest that affects spring Chinook 

salmon takes place in ocean fisheries from Oregon to Alaska. Some harvest also occurs 

in commercial and recreational fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River below 

Bonneville Dam, in tributary fisheries targeting hatchery fish, and in Zone 6 tribal 

fisheries for Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon spawning above Bonneville 

Dam (a tribal fishery also targets the Hood population in the tributary). From 1980 to 

1993, harvest rates on spring Chinook salmon harvest averaged 51 percent, but during 

the period since listing (i.e., 1999 to 2006) they dropped to approximately 20 percent 

(ODFW 2010).

Although both the Washington and Oregon recovery plans discuss harvest as a limiting 

factor for Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, they do not consider baseline 

harvest rates as significant a limiting factor as dam passage constraints, tributary habitat 

degradation, and hatchery effects.

 25 The exact extent to which Bonneville Reservoir inundated habitats for any species is unknown. Some 

biologists have hypothesized impacts to spring Chinook salmon as a result of inundation. Based on 

spawning habitat preferences, it is likely that impacts of inundation were greatest on fall Chinook and chum 

salmon.

26 However, the North Toutle sediment retention structure currently blocks access to as many as 50 miles of 

habitat for anadromous fish.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-28

7.4.1.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors

It is estimated that hatchery fish make up anywhere from 34 to 90 percent of spring 

Chinook salmon spawners, depending on the population in question (ODFW 2010,

Table 4-8 and LCFRB 2010a, Table 3-8). Population-level effects resulting from stray 

hatchery fish interbreeding with natural-origin fish are identified as a primary limiting 

factor for all populations except the White Salmon. Hatchery straying, combined with 

past stock transfers, has likely altered the genetics of spring Chinook salmon

populations and may have reduced diversity within the ESU. Productivity also has

likely declined as a result of the influence of hatchery-origin fish. Notably, however, 

high proportions of hatchery-origin spawners are sometimes intentional because 

hatchery fish are being used to reintroduce spring Chinook salmon where they have 

been extirpated or nearly so (e.g., in the Hood, Cowlitz, and Lewis subbasins). In 

identifying hatchery-related limiting factors, the management unit plans evaluated only 

negative impacts of hatchery fish on productivity of natural fish and not the positive 

demographic benefits that such reintroduction programs can provide in the short term.

Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia 

Basin hatcheries may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and 

habitat space in the estuary. NMFS (2011a) and LCFRB (2010a) identified competition for 

food and space among hatchery and natural-origin juveniles in the estuary as a critical 

uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed competition for 

food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define 

and describe the scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between 

hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore 

ocean habitats.

7.4.1.6 Predation

Direct mortality from predation is a secondary limiting factor for all spring Chinook 

salmon populations. Anthropogenic changes to the structure of habitat have increased 

predator abundance and effectiveness and led to increased predation by Caspian terns, 

double-crested cormorants and various other species of seabirds in the Columbia River 

estuary and plume. Gorge spring Chinook salmon also face secondary predation threats 

from non-salmonid fish (primarily pikeminnows above and below the dam but also 

walleye and smallmouth bass in the reservoir) and from marine mammals (primarily sea 

lions) at Bonneville Dam.

7.4.2 Spring Chinook Salmon Baseline Threat Impacts and Threat 

Reduction Targets

Table 7-6 shows the estimated impact on each Lower Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon population resulting from potentially manageable threats, organized into six 

threat categories: tributary habitat degradation, estuary habitat degradation, 

hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation. Both baseline and target impacts are 

shown, with the targets representing levels that would be consistent with long-term 

recovery goals. Impact values indicate the percentage reduction in abundance and 

productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-29

category. The value associated with any particular threat category can be interpreted as 

the percent reduction in abundance and productivity from historical conditions if that 

threat category were the only one affecting the population. The table also shows the 

overall percentage improvement that is needed to achieve the target impacts and 

corresponding population status.27 These cumulative values across all threat categories 

(both baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive. Both the Oregon and 

Washington management unit plans use cumulative survivals across threat categories to 

illustrate the overall level of improvement needed. Each plan assumes that there is a 

direct proportional relationship between the projected changes in cumulative survival 

and the required changes in natural-origin spawner abundance and productivity. For 

populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 percent, Table 7-

6 does not report the exact value, in part because the value is highly uncertain.28

As an example, the baseline status of the Upper Cowlitz spring Chinook salmon

population, circa 1999, has been severely reduced by the combined effects of multiple 

threats. The cumulative reduction in status was estimated at 99.8 percent from the 

multiplicative impacts of multiple threats acting across the salmon life cycle. Thus, 

current status is just 0.2 percent of the historical potential with no human impact. 

Tributary habitat, hydropower, harvest, and hatchery impacts each accounted for 

reductions in population productivity of 50 percent or more, with corresponding 

reductions in abundance, spatial structure, and diversity. The Washington management 

unit plan identifies a recovery strategy involving significant reductions in the impact of 

several threats. For instance, the plan targets tributary habitat impacts to be reduced 

from the estimated baseline level of 90 percent to 45 percent (i.e., an approximately 100 

percent improvement relative to baseline conditions). With the targeted reductions in 

individual impacts, the cumulative effect of all impacts would drop from 99.8 percent at 

baseline to 86.1 percent at the target status. This change would translate into a more than 

500 percent improvement in survival relative to the baseline. Although the population 

would still be experiencing abundance and productivity that are 74.7 percent lower than 

historical conditions, the extinction risk at this mortality level would be estimated 

sufficient to meet the targets for this plan.

Oregon and Washington recovery planners used somewhat different definitions or 

methods to quantify the estimated impacts of anthropogenic threats. Baseline impacts 

for Washington populations reflect conditions prevalent at the time of ESA listing (circa 

1999), while the baseline impacts for Oregon populations reflect conditions through 

2004. Dam impacts for Washington populations reflect passage mortality, habitat loss 

caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas; for Oregon 

 27 The percentage of survival improvement needed is the percentage change in net impacts, is derived from 

information in the Washington and Oregon management unit plans, and is calculated as follows: [(1-

CumulativeTarget)-(1-CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. These values generally correspond to 

population improvement targets identified for Washington populations in LCFRB (2010). Comparable 

numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling approach that Oregon

recovery planners used to derive target impacts.

28 For some populations—many of them small—the survival improvement needed is very large and highly 

uncertain because various other factors also are uncertain (i.e., the population’s baseline persistence 

probability, the exact degree of impact of human activities on tributary habitat, and whether the 

population’s response to reductions in impacts will be linear). In addition, very small populations do not 

necessarily follow predictable patterns in their response to changing conditions. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-30

populations, the estimates of impacts in the “Dams” column of Table 7-6 reflect direct 

upstream and downstream passage mortality only, with other dam impacts accounted 

for in the habitat and predation threat categories. Hatchery impacts for Washington 

populations were limited to not more than 50 percent per population, in accordance 

with Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) assessments of the potential for genetic 

effects (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2009); for Oregon populations, recovery 

planners used hatchery impact rates equivalent to one-half the rates at which hatchery 

fish were found on natural spawning grounds, based on analyzed relationships and 

reflecting concern about genetic and ecological effects. Washington recovery planners 

derived estimates of impacts to tributary habitat using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and 

Treatment (EDT) model. Oregon recovery planners estimated the mortality associated 

with estuary habitat degradation, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation and 

assigned all remaining mortality (relative to the difference between the current modeled 

abundance and estimated historical abundance) to tributary habitat. In general, the 

tributary habitat values in Table 7-6 have the highest degree of uncertainty relative to 

the other threat categories and, for Oregon populations, may include causes of mortality 

associated with the other threat categories but not directly captured in those mortality 

estimates. (See Section 5.5 for more on the methodologies used to estimate 

baseline impacts.)

Estimates of threat impacts are useful in showing the relative magnitude of impacts on 

each population. Given the differences in methodologies, some values in Table 7-6 for 

Oregon and Washington populations are not necessarily directly comparable. Thus, 

values for Oregon populations are most directly comparable to those for other Oregon 

populations, and values for Washington populations are most directly comparable to 

those for other Washington populations. Regardless of differences in specific threat 

impact definitions and methods, the net effect of changes from all threats is useful in 

understanding the magnitude of population improvement needed to achieve the target 

population status. 

The target impacts in Table 7-6 represent one of several possible combinations of threat 

reductions that could conceivably close the conservation gap and lead to a population 

achieving its target status. The particular threat reductions shown in Table 7-6 reflect 

policy decisions and the methodologies and assumptions used by the different recovery 

planning teams. (For a description of how target impacts were developed, see Section 

5.6.) In estimating impacts, management unit recovery planners evaluated each threat 

category independently (i.e., values in the table reflect the mortality of spring Chinook 

exposed to that particular category of threats, whether or not they are exposed to threats 

in the other categories). The estimates of baseline threat impacts have high levels of 

uncertainty and in many cases should be considered working hypotheses that are 

testable as part of recovery plan implementation. Despite this uncertainty, it is the expert 

judgment of NMFS and management unit scientists that, based on the best available 

information at this time, the estimates of baseline threat impacts provide a reasonable 

estimate of the relative magnitude of different sources of anthropogenic mortality and 

serve as an adequate basis for designing initial recovery actions.29 As more and better 

 29 As implementation proceeds, research, monitoring, and evaluation and adaptive management will be key 

in helping to refine scientific understanding of the impact of threats on population persistence and of the 

extent to which management actions are reducing threats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-31

information is collected, it will be applied to recovery efforts in an adaptive 

management framework.

As shown in Table 7-6, almost every spring Chinook salmon population is greatly 

affected by the loss and degradation of tributary habitat, and five populations—the 

Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, North Fork Lewis, and White Salmon—have experienced

impacts from tributary dams that are comparable to or even greater than those 

associated with other factors that affect tributary habitat. Accordingly, for most 

populations, the greatest gains in viability are expected from tributary habitat and dam 

passage improvements (combined with hatchery reintroduction programs). Exceptions 

are the Tilton—a stabilizing population that is expected to remain at its baseline status—

and the Sandy and Hood populations, for which reductions in hatchery impacts are 

targeted to provide the greatest benefit. 

Baseline hatchery and harvest impacts also are significant for most spring Chinook 

salmon populations. Although recent actions have substantially reduced harvest of 

spring Chinook salmon from baseline conditions, ancillary and precautionary actions 

are needed to ensure that harvest does not adversely affect conservation and recovery in 

the future. For all but the Tilton population, hatchery-related impacts are targeted to be 

reduced by half or more, with the largest reductions targeted in the Sandy and Hood 

populations.30 Achieving recovery goals also will require improvements in predation 

management and estuary habitat impacts; however, net reductions in these threat 

categories are smaller than those for tributary habitat, hydropower, hatcheries, and 

harvest because the impacts of estuarine and predation threats are less. 

Four of the nine spring Chinook salmon populations are targeted for significant 

reductions in every threat category, including hydropower (in the form of tributary dam 

removal or upstream and downstream passage improvements). These populations are 

the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, North Fork Lewis, and White Salmon. Of these, only the 

White Salmon is not designated as primary. 

More information on threat reduction scenarios, including methodologies used to 

determine baseline and target impacts, is available in the management unit plans 

(ODFW 2010, pp. 151-177 and LCFRB 2010a, pp. 4-30 through 4-33, and 6-49 through 6-

52).

 30 See the discussion below, in Section 7.4.3.6, regarding use of out-of-ESU stock for reintroducing spring 

Chinook salmon in the Hood River.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-32

Table 7-6

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Spring Chinook 

Salmon Populations

Impacts at Baseline31 Impacts at Target % Survival 

ImprovePopulation T. Hab32 Est33 Dams34 Harv35 Hat36 Pred37 Cumulative38 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

ment Needed39

Cascade Spring

Upper Cowlitz (WA) 0.90 0.15 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.22 0.9983 0.45 0.08 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.8607 >500

Cispus (WA) 0.90 0.15 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.22 1.0000 0.45 0.08 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.8733 >50040

 31 Impact figures represent a percentage reduction in abundance and productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat category. 

Methods used to estimate impacts differ for Oregon and Washington populations. For example, baseline impacts reflect conditions circa 1999 for Washington 

populations and through 2004 for Oregon populations. Given the methodological differences, impact figures are not necessarily directly comparable. See 

Sections 5.5 and 5.6 for more on methodologies.

32 Reduction in tributary habitat production potential relative to historical conditions. Oregon and Washington used different methods to estimate historical 

abundance. Oregon’s approach, which incorporates safety margins and includes causes of mortality that are not captured in the other five threat categories, tends 

to indicate a higher potential impact from tributary habitat loss and degradation than does Washington’s. 

33 Reduction in juvenile survival in the Columbia River estuary as a result of habitat changes (relative to historical conditions); excludes predation.

34 Reflects passage mortality, habitat loss caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas for Washington populations; for Oregon 

populations, dam impacts reflect direct passage mortality only.

35 Includes direct and indirect mortality.

36 Reflects only the negative impacts of hatchery-origin fish, such as high pHOS and low PNI (proportion of natural influence), not the benefits of conservation 

hatchery programs.

37 Includes the aggregate predation rate in the Columbia River mainstem and estuary by northern pikeminnow, marine mammals, Caspian terns, and cormorants.

38 Cumulative values (both baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive and are equal to (1-[(1-Mthab)(1-Mest)(1-Mdams)(1-Mharv)(1-Mhatch)(1-Mpred)]). 

Minor differences from numbers in ODFW 2010 are due to rounding. 

39 Survival improvements indicate the percentage improvement (rounded to the nearest 10) in population survival needed to achieve target impacts and are 

derived from the cumulative values (baseline and target). For most populations this was calculated using the following equation: [(1-CumulativeTarget)-(1-

CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. These cumulative impact numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling 

approach that Oregon recovery planners used to derive target impacts. For populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 percent, this 

table does not report the exact value, for the reasons explained in Section 7.4.2 

40 The Cispus population requires improvements in every threat category. However, given that hydropower impacts are 100 percent for this population, it will not 

benefit from improvements in other threat categories until some degree of passage is restored. Although passage improvements alone will not lead to recovery, 

how successful passage improvements are will greatly influence how much improvement is needed in the other threat categories. The Tilton population also has 

hydropower impacts of 100 percent but is a stabilizing population not targeted for improvements in any threat category. Because hydropower impacts are 100 

percent for both these populations, the formula for percent survival improvement for these populations was modified to account for the 100 percent hydropower 

impacts (i.e., to avoid having to divide by zero). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-33

Table 7-6

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Spring Chinook 

Salmon Populations

Impacts at Baseline31 Impacts at Target % Survival 

ImprovePopulation T. Hab32 Est33 Dams34 Harv35 Hat36 Pred37 Cumulative38 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

ment Needed39

Tilton (WA) 0.80 0.15 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.22 1.0000 0.80 0.15 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.22 1.0000 0

Toutle (WA) 0.90 0.15 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.22 0.9834 0.45 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.7467 >500

Kalama (WA) 0.90 0.15 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.22 0.9834 0.45 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.7467 >500

NF Lewis (WA) 0.40 0.15 0.95 0.50 0.50 0.22 0.9950 0.20 0.08 0.48 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.8084 >500

Sandy (OR) 0.94 0.10 0.08 0.25 0.27 0.12 0.9761 0.92 0.08 0.00 0.25 0.05 0.07 0.9512 100

Gorge Spring

White Salmon (WA)41 0.70 0.14 0.96 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.9981 0.35 0.07 0.48 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.8462 >500

Hood (OR) 0.89 0.10 0.35 0.25 0.45 0.16 0.9777 0.82 0.08 0.12 0.25 0.05 0.07 0.9034 330

 41 Baseline and target impacts for the Upper Gorge/White Salmon population are from LCFRB (2010a).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-34

7.4.3 Spring Chinook Salmon Recovery Strategy

7.4.3.1 Strategy Summary

The recovery strategy for spring Chinook salmon is aimed at restoring the Cascade 

spring stratum to a high probability of persistence and improving the persistence 

probability of the two Gorge spring populations. Although the strategy involves threat 

reductions in all categories, the most crucial elements are as follows:

1. Protect and improve the Sandy spring Chinook salmon population, which is the 

best-performing population and the only Lower Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon population with appreciable natural production. This will be 

accomplished by protecting high-quality, well-functioning spawning and rearing 

habitat, reducing the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS), managing 

predation, and restoring tributary and estuarine habitat.42

2. Reestablish naturally spawning populations above dams on the Cowlitz and 

North Fork Lewis rivers, in areas that historically were highly productive, by 

improving adult and juvenile dam passage and developing hatchery 

reintroduction programs using broodstock from within-subbasin hatchery 

programs. Reestablishing populations in mid- to upper-elevation habitats is key 

to recovering the spring component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon ESU.

3. Protect favorable tributary habitat and restore degraded but potentially 

productive habitat, particularly in the upper subbasins where spring Chinook 

salmon hold, spawn, and rear. Tributary habitat improvements are crucial for all 

populations.

4. Reestablish spring Chinook salmon in the White Salmon and Hood subbasins.

Very large improvements will be needed in the persistence probability of most spring 

Chinook salmon populations if the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU is to 

recover. (See Table 7-4 for the target persistence probability for each spring Chinook 

salmon population and Figure 7-6 for the gaps between baseline and target status.) 

Improving the status of the two Gorge populations will be difficult because of the 

challenges of reestablishing an extirpated population in the White Salmon subbasin after 

the removal of Condit Dam and of developing a locally adapted population in the Hood 

subbasin based on hatchery reintroduction. To compensate for limited prospects in the 

Gorge stratum, a goal of high persistence probability has been established for more than 

the minimum number of populations in the Cascade spring Chinook stratum. 

The recovery strategy for spring Chinook salmon is a long-term, “all-H” approach in

which plan implementers begin work on all of the elements described above 

immediately and implement actions associated with each of the six threat categories 

 42 Some reduction in impacts on the Sandy population already have been achieved through removal of 

Marmot Dam and the Little Sandy River diversion in 2008 and protection of associated instream water 

rights for fish.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-35

simultaneously.43 As part of a series of 3- to 5-year implementation schedules, 

management unit planners will work with NMFS staff to prioritize individual actions

within each threat category, rather than across threat categories (see Chapter 11 for more 

on implementation). Recovery will require improvements in every threat category, even 

those improvements in Table 7-6 that are relatively small. Although restoring effective 

passage into historical natural production areas in the upper Cowlitz and Lewis systems 

will be key in meeting recovery objectives for spring Chinook salmon, the full potential 

of dam passage improvements will be limited without significant habitat restoration and 

protection. Site-specific restoration is needed in upper subbasins immediately, along 

with implementation of tributary habitat protection and watershed-based restoration 

actions; these measures will ensure adequate habitat quantity and function for viable 

populations over the long term. Harvest rates will be maintained at their current 

relatively low level until actions in other threat categories have taken effect; once 

populations have been reestablished above tributary dams and natural production has 

increased, harvest rates can be reevaluated. 

Key critical uncertainties that need to be addressed to support implementation of nearterm actions relate to passage efficiencies past tributary dams, juvenile production in 

upper subbasins, the pace at which reintroduced populations become functional and 

self-sustaining, and the amount of pinniped predation on spring Chinook salmon in the 

Columbia River estuary (see Section 7.4.3.8).

The subsections below describe recovery strategies and near-term and long-term 

priorities for each threat category. For specific management actions in each threat 

category, linked to population and location, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 

2010a, ODFW 2010, NMFS 2013).

7.4.3.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy

Spring Chinook salmon will benefit from the regional tributary habitat strategy

described in Section 4.1.2. The regional strategy is directed toward protecting and 

restoring high-quality, well-functioning spring Chinook salmon and steelhead habitat 

through a combination of (1) site-specific management actions that will protect habitat 

and provide benefits relatively quickly, (2) watershed-based actions that will repair

habitat-forming processes and provide benefits over the long term, and (3) landscapescale programmatic actions that affect a class of activities (such as stormwater 

management or forest practices) over multiple watersheds. Actions of particular benefit 

to spring Chinook salmon focus on protecting and restoring floodplain connectivity and 

function, access to side channels and off-channel habitats, and habitat complexity and 

diversity, especially in mid- to high-elevation habitat. Improving riparian cover and 

recruitment of large wood to streams also will be a priority. Headwater areas are 

targeted for protection and restoration to maintain sources of cool, clean water and 

normative hydrologic conditions; this includes protecting intact forests, managing forest 

lands to protect watershed processes and habitat conditions (LCFRB 2010a), and 

restoring upland processes that will reduce inputs of fine sediment to the spawning 

 43 Implementation of recovery actions to reduce threats in each category is already under way, although the 

scale of effort is less than that called for in this recovery plan. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-36

gravel of spring Chinook salmon. The subsections below summarize additional, 

stratum-specific tributary habitat strategies for spring Chinook salmon. 

Cascade Spring Chinook Salmon Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon tributary habitat 

strategy in the Cascade stratum, considerations include the following:

• Generally, habitat conditions are favorable in the upper portions of the Cowlitz, 

Cispus, and North Fork Lewis subbasins, where populations are targeted for 

high or high-plus persistence probability but where access has been blocked by 

dams. In these areas, protecting high-quality habitat and restoring upslope 

processes, valley floodplain function, and stream habitat diversity will be 

priorities. Large portions of these areas are in federal forest land, which 

highlights the importance of Northwest Forest Plan implementation to protect 

habitats in those areas.

• Particularly for the Washington populations, substantial restoration also will be 

needed in currently accessible areas. Because spring Chinook salmon use mid- to 

high-elevation valley habitats for spawning and rearing, restoration efforts will 

focus on such areas, both in historically highly productive watersheds as well as 

some where production potential is more limited. Actions will include those 

described above for spring Chinook salmon generally. 

• Habitat conditions are generally favorable in the Sandy subbasin (this population 

is targeted for high persistence probability). Again, large portions of this 

subbasin are in federal forest land. Implementation of the City of Portland’s Bull 

Run water supply habitat conservation plan will also play a key role in habitat 

restoration and protection in the Sandy subbasin. Under this plan, the city will 

implement habitat actions throughout the subbasin as mitigation for its water 

supply project on the Bull Run River.

• State or private forest land predominates in the upper portions of the Toutle, 

Kalama, and North Fork Lewis subbasins. These lands must be managed to 

protect and restore watershed processes.

Addressing passage barriers such as culverts will benefit Cascade spring Chinook 

salmon populations by restoring access to habitat in a number of locations, including the 

North Fork Lewis, Tilton, Cispus, and Upper Cowlitz subbasins. (In some cases, 

additional assessment is needed to inventory and prioritize these blockages.) For the 

Toutle population, addressing sedimentation and passage issues at the North Fork 

Toutle sediment retention structure will be key. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 7-6, 

the scale of habitat improvements needed for Cascade spring Chinook stratum 

populations is minimal in the case of the Sandy population and the Tilton population, 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-37

which, as a stabilizing population, is expected to remain at its baseline status.44 For the 

Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Toutle, Kalama, and North Fork Lewis populations, baseline 

impacts to tributary habitat productivity are targeted to be reduced by 50 percent to 

meet recovery targets. 

Gorge Spring Chinook Salmon Tributary Habitat Strategies 

In implementing the Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon tributary habitat 

strategy in the Gorge stratum, considerations include the following:

• Gorge populations occur in watersheds that are largely federal, state, and private 

forest land. These lands must be managed to protect and restore watershed 

processes. 

The Oregon management unit plan identifies an approximately 8 percent reduction in 

tributary habitat impacts needed to achieve the target status for the Hood spring 

Chinook salmon population. Site-specific actions will focus on restoring or creating offchannel and side-channel habitat (alcoves, wetlands, floodplains, etc.), providing access 

to off-channel and side-channel habitat, and restoring riparian areas and instream 

habitat complexity, including recruitment of large wood to streams. Because water 

quantity issues associated with irrigation withdrawals are identified as a limiting factor 

for the Hood spring Chinook salmon population, the Oregon management unit plan 

identifies a number of actions to address flow issues (e.g., ensure that low-head 

hydropower projects do not adversely impact winter streamflows and work the Oregon 

Water Resources Department and others to keep water saved through publicly funded 

water conservation efforts instream for fish). 

In the White Salmon subbasin, all historical spring Chinook salmon habitat is assumed 

to be located above Condit Dam. The breaching of Condit Dam in October 2011 (with 

full removal in September 2012) created near-term negative effects in the habitat below 

the dam and the habitat within the footprint of the former reservoir because of sediment 

release and scouring. Long-term effects are expected to be positive because of restored 

natural flow and sediment transport regimes. The White Salmon plan outlines four 

broad tributary habitat strategies: (1) gain information to identify and prioritize habitat 

actions, (2) when the dam is removed, restore mainstem habitat, (3) protect and conserve 

natural ecological processes, and (4) improve habitat in upriver reaches (NMFS 2013). In 

the near term, evaluating the effects on of the dam breaching and removal on habitat 

and performing additional assessment of habitat limiting factors are high priorities. 

7.4.3.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy

Improving Columbia River estuary habitat as described in the regional estuary habitat 

strategy will benefit all Columbia Basin ESUs, including Lower Columbia River spring 

Chinook salmon. (For a summary of the regional estuarine habitat strategy, see Section

4.2.2). The regional strategy reflects actions presented in the Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans to reduce estuarine habitat-related threats and is consistent with 

 44 Because of dam passage issues and relatively low habitat quality, the Tilton population is expected to 

remain at its baseline probability persistence of very low. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-38

actions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead

(NMFS 2011a).

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) assumes that feasible estuarine habitat improvements and predation 

management measures could result in a maximum increase of 20 percent in the number 

of spring Chinook salmon leaving the Columbia River estuary. Oregon and Washington 

management recovery planners set targets of reducing anthropogenically enhanced 

mortality in the estuary for spring Chinook salmon populations based on the estuary 

module and their own approaches to threat reductions (ODFW 2010, Tables 6-24 and 6-

25; LCFRB 2010a, Table 6-2).

7.4.3.4 Hydropower Strategy

The hydropower recovery strategy for Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon is 

to address the impacts of tributary hydropower dams through implementation of FERC 

relicensing agreements and thereby reestablish viable spring Chinook salmon

populations in the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and North Fork Lewis subbasins; achieve 

survival gains in the Sandy, White Salmon, and Hood populations; and maintain the 

Tilton population at its baseline persistence probability of very low. Accomplishing 

these objectives will involve the removal of FERC-licensed dams (completed in the 

Sandy, Hood, and White Salmon) and development of adult and juvenile passage 

systems and hatchery reintroduction programs in the Cowlitz (Upper Cowlitz, Cispus 

populations) and Lewis subbasins.45

The strategy also includes measures to improve passage survival at Bonneville Dam for 

the Hood and White Salmon populations and implementation of mainstem flow 

management operations designed to benefit spring migrants from the interior of the 

Columbia Basin; NMFS expects that these flow management operations will also 

improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the plume for all Lower Columbia 

River salmon and steelhead populations. NMFS estimates that survival of spring 

Chinook salmon passing Bonneville Dam was 95.1 percent for juveniles from 2002 to 

2009 and 98.6 percent for adults from 2002 to 2007 (NMFS 2008a). NMFS expected that 

implementation of actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement would improve juvenile spring Chinook salmon survival at Bonneville Dam 

by less than 1⁄2 percent, and that adult survival would be maintained at recent high levels

(NMFS 2008a). Consequently, Oregon did not incorporate survival benefits from 

passage improvements at Bonneville into the hydropower threat reduction targets for 

Oregon populations above Bonneville.46 The Washington management unit plan 

assumed that actions identified in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement would aid adults and juveniles from all Lower Columbia River spring 

Chinook salmon populations originating above Bonneville Dam. However, preliminary 

information indicates that survival gains for yearling Chinook at Bonneville Dam are 

higher than expected and are above 96 percent (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2011b). 

 45 Spring Chinook salmon will likely also be reintroduced into the Tilton subbasin eventually, but those 

efforts will be delayed to facilitate reintroduction into the Upper Cowlitz and Cispus subbasins. 

46 Hydropower-related threat reduction targets for Oregon populations above Bonneville Dam are 

associated with removal of Powerdale Dam on the Hood River.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-39

For more on actions to improve mainstem dam passage, see the regional hydropower 

strategy in Section 4.3.2.

In its management unit plan, Oregon incorporated several actions addressing impacts of 

the Columbia River hydropower system that are not included in the FCRPS Biological 

Opinion and its 2010 Supplement but that Oregon maintains are needed to benefit 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations that spawn above Bonneville 

Dam. The state of Oregon’s position is that the FCRPS action agencies should conduct 

operations in addition to those incorporated in the FCRPS Biological Opinion to address 

the needs of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Oregon is a plaintiff in litigation against 

various federal agencies, including NMFS, challenging the adequacy of measures in the 

FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. NMFS does not agree with Oregon 

regarding the need for or likely efficacy of the additional actions Oregon proposed in 

that litigation, including the actions in the Oregon management unit plan that are not 

part of the FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. For more detail on these 

actions and NMFS’ view of them, see the regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2.

The subsections below summarize stratum-level hydropower strategies for spring 

Chinook salmon.

Cascade Spring Chinook Salmon Hydropower Strategy

The Cascade-stratum hydropower strategy is crucial to successful recovery of the spring 

life history component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU. The strategy 

involves creating or improving passage at projects on the Cowlitz and Lewis rivers and 

using hatchery reintroduction programs to reestablish viable populations in the Upper 

Cowlitz, Cispus, and North Fork Lewis subbasins (the Tilton population, in the Cowlitz 

system, is not expected to improve above its baseline persistence probability of very 

low). These changes are being implemented under the terms of FERC relicensing 

agreements completed with Tacoma Power for the Cowlitz River Project (Settlement 

Agreement completed in 2000) and with PacifiCorp and the Cowlitz PUD for the Lewis 

River Hydroelectric Projects (Settlement Agreement in 2004). Although there are many 

challenges to reestablishing natural spawning above the dams, the upper portions of the 

Cowlitz, Cispus, and North Fork Lewis subbasins still have relatively intact and wellfunctioning habitat that support spring Chinook salmon spawning and rearing. 

In the Cowlitz subbasin, the hatchery Barrier Dam prevents all volitional passage of 

anadromous fish above RM 49.5. Currently, spring Chinook salmon are collected, 

natural-origin fish are separated from hatchery broodstock, and natural-origin fish are 

transported upstream of Barrier, Mayfield, Mossyrock, and Cowlitz Falls dams and 

released into the Upper Cowlitz and Cispus rivers.47 Spring Chinook salmon smolts are 

collected at Cowlitz Falls Dam, briefly held in stress-relief ponds, and released into the 

lower Cowlitz (LCFRB 2010a). Survival of juveniles through reservoirs and past dams is 

especially problematic in this system (LCFRB 2010a). Both upstream passage and 

downstream passage at these dams are expected to be improved as part of the 2002 

FERC relicensing order. High collection rates of downstream migrants will be key to 

 47 Spring Chinook salmon will likely also be reintroduced into the Tilton subbasin eventually, but those 

efforts will be delayed to facilitate reintroduction into the Upper Cowlitz and Cispus subbasins.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-40

recovery of the populations above Cowlitz Falls. Tacoma Power will evaluate fish 

returns and survival through the reservoirs and assess passage options. Adult passage at 

Mayfield Dam will be by trap and haul unless certain settlement agreement criteria (fish 

sorting, productivity, etc.) are met. If met, then passage at Mayfield Dam is likely to be 

provided through construction of a ladder, whereas passage at the much larger 

Mossyrock Dam would likely be provided by either trap and haul or a tramway. 

In the North Fork Lewis subbasin, three dams—Merwin, Yale, and Swift—block passage 

to the upper North Fork Lewis, starting with Merwin Dam at RM 20. As part of the 2004 

FERC relicensing agreement with PacifiCorp and the Cowlitz Public Utility District, 

spring Chinook salmon will be reintroduced into habitat upstream of the three dams. 

Almost all remaining historical spring Chinook salmon spawning habitat for the North 

Fork Lewis population is located in the upper North Fork Lewis watershed, above Swift 

Reservoir (LCFRB 2010a). The keys to successful reintroduction will be adequate 

passage of adults to and juveniles from the upper watershed, hatchery supplementation, 

and habitat improvements. In addition, because hydroregulation on the Lewis River has 

altered the natural flow regime below Merwin Dam, further adjustments in flow regime 

may be needed to provide adequate flows for habitat formation, fish migration, water 

quality, floodplain connectivity, habitat capacity, and sediment transport.48 However, 

floodplain and channel alterations in the lower river will limit the ability of changes in 

flow regime to restore lower floodplain function, so flow modifications will need to take 

place in concert with restoration of lower river floodplain function.

Downstream passage of juveniles through tributary hydropower projects was identified 

as a secondary limiting factor for the Sandy spring Chinook salmon population, but the 

PGE Bull Run Hydroelectric Project (consisting of Marmot and Little Sandy dams) was 

removed in 2007-2008, so this is no longer a limiting factor.

Gorge Spring Chinook Salmon Hydropower Strategy

Tributary hydropower impacts for the White Salmon and Hood populations largely 

have been addressed by the removal of Condit and Powerdale dams, respectively. 

Condit Dam, operated on the White Salmon River by PacifiCorp, was breached in

October 2011 and, under the terms of a 1999 decommissioning agreement and a 2006 

Biological Opinion, was completely removed in September 2012. Removal reopens

access to 12.8 miles of historical spring Chinook salmon habitat (NMFS 2013). This 

represents virtually all the historical habitat for the White Salmon spring Chinook 

salmon population. Now that dam removal has been completed, natural escapement 

and production will be monitored for 4 to 5 years; if recolonization has not occurred 

adequately by that time, appropriate hatchery adults and/or juveniles may be released 

into the White Salmon River.

Powerdale Dam, on the Hood River, and also operated by PacifiCorp, was removed in 

2010 under the terms of a settlement agreement reached in 2003. The dam acted as a 

partial barrier that delayed upstream migration of returning adults.49 Removal of 

 48 Changes in flow regime will need to consider the needs of all listed species in the Lewis Basin.

49 Downstream migrants were not entrained or delayed at Powerdale Dam once hydropower operations 

were suspended in late 2006.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-41

Powerdale will eliminate this hydropower-related mortality for the Hood spring 

Chinook salmon population. 

Actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement will also provide 

slight improvements in juvenile survival for the two Gorge spring Chinook salmon

populations (see the regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2).

7.4.3.5 Harvest Strategy

Harvest impacts on natural-origin spring Chinook salmon averaged about 51 percent 

per year around the time of listing and currently are around 20 percent (about half of 

which occurs in mixed-stock ocean fisheries). The Oregon management unit plan 

considers a baseline harvest rate of 25 percent to be consistent with recovery of naturalorigin spring Chinook salmon and does not include reductions in harvest in its 

population threat reduction scenarios for spring Chinook salmon (ODFW 2010); 

however, the Oregon management unit plan does include ancillary and precautionary 

actions to ensure that harvest does not adversely affect conservation and recovery in the 

future. 

The Washington management unit plan also estimated that fishery impacts of 25 percent 

were consistent with long-term objectives. For harvest in general, the Washington 

management unit plan recommends a phased harvest strategy involving lower nearterm rates to reduce population risks until habitat has improved. Modeling in the plan 

shows a scenario in which spring Chinook salmon harvest rates would be managed for 

benchmarks of 15 to 25 percent for three consecutive 12-year evaluation periods (i.e., 

from 1999-2010, 2011-2022, and 2023-2034). The 15 to 25 percent benchmark reflects the 

possible need for (1) rates lower than 25 percent in some years to reduce the risk of 

critically low escapements in years of low ocean survival, and (2) fishery restrictions 

within selected subbasins to protect local populations (LCFRB 2010a). Then, the 

modeling shows that, assuming that habitat improvements have been achieved and 

hatchery reintroductions have been successful in establishing natural production, 

harvest impacts on natural-origin fish could then be higher, in the range of 20 to 

30 percent (LCFRB 2010a). These modeling results are planning targets and not 

predictions of future harvest rates; managers will establish future harvest rates based on 

observed indicators in Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon populations. 

Although near-term harvest impact reduction benchmarks have been met (in the case of 

the Washington management unit plan) or are not needed (in the case of the Oregon 

management unit plan), the plans do contain some actions related to spring Chinook 

salmon that are consistent with the regional harvest strategy (see Section 4.5.2). Most of 

these actions have either already been implemented or involve the continuation of 

ongoing efforts, including the following: 

• Supporting mark-selective ocean fisheries when the Pacific Salmon Treaty is 

renegotiated in 2018 (ODFW 2010).

• Employing time and area restrictions to address specific annual or population 

concerns (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-42

Over the long term, as reintroduction and passage improvement efforts begin to yield 

more natural production, it will be necessary to reevaluate harvest impacts and 

determine an appropriate harvest strategy. 

Cascade Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Strategy

The Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon harvest strategy described in Section 

7.4.3.5 will benefit populations in this stratum. 

Gorge Spring Chinook Salmon Harvest Strategy

The ESU-level harvest strategies described in Section 7.4.3.5 will benefit populations in 

this stratum. In addition, because Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon

spawning above Bonneville Dam (i.e., the Hood population at present, but once they are 

reestablished, the White Salmon population as well) are intercepted in Zone 6 tribal 

fisheries, the Oregon management unit plan includes an action to discuss with tribes 

potential actions to reduce those impacts. (Potential actions include extending 

sanctuaries from the mouths of tributaries and/or modifying season length or timing.) 

7.4.3.6 Hatchery Strategy

The regional hatchery described in Section 4.4.2 summarizes goals and approaches 

relevant to Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon. Goals for spring Chinook 

salmon include using hatchery broodstocks to reestablish populations that have been 

extirpated (the Hood) or whose access to spawning and rearing habitat has been blocked 

by hydropower dams (the upper Cowlitz, North Fork Lewis, and Cispus populations 

and, potentially, the White Salmon). In general, reducing hatchery impacts on naturalorigin spring Chinook salmon will be accomplished by (1) changing hatchery practices 

related to broodstock selection and management, numbers of releases, and locations and 

timing of acclimation and releases, and (2) physically excluding hatchery-origin fish 

from natural spawning areas by using weirs, traps, or other measures. For the Sandy 

and Hood populations, lessening the effects of hatchery-origin fish on naturally 

produced fish is expected to provide greater benefit than any other general category of 

action.

Details of how the hatchery strategy will be implemented in each spring Chinook 

salmon stratum will be developed as part of the transition schedules, but the subsections 

below provide some information. 

Cascade Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Strategy

The hatchery strategy for the Cascade spring Chinook stratum centers on using hatchery 

spring Chinook salmon to reestablish the Upper Cowlitz and Cispus populations in 

historically accessible habitats in the Cowlitz subbasin and to reestablish the North Fork 

Lewis population in historically accessible habitats in the Lewis subbasin. (The Tilton 

population is targeted to be maintained at very low persistence probability, in part

because of relatively poor habitat quality.) For the Kalama and Sandy populations, 

hatchery strategies will be targeted at reducing impacts on naturally spawning fish 

while continuing to produce spring Chinook salmon that provide fish for harvest. No 

hatchery spring Chinook salmon are released into the Toutle subbasin.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-43

In the Cowlitz and Lewis systems, outplanting of hatchery-origin juveniles and adults is 

considered the initial stage of reintroduction. In this stage, broodstock choices are 

limited to existing hatchery stocks. In the Cowlitz, the Cowlitz hatchery broodstock has 

had negligible out-of-basin influence and is considered consistent with the original 

Cowlitz naturally spawning stock (LCFRB 2010a). Hatchery fish will be used to (1) 

reintroduce natural production in appropriate areas of the basin and adjacent tributary 

streams, (2) develop a local broodstock to reestablish historical diversity and life history 

characteristics, and (3) provide fishery mitigation in a manner that does not post 

significant risks to natural populations as they rebuild (LCFRB 2010a). The 

reintroduction program will include development of a biologically appropriate 

relationship and management strategy for hatchery and wild broodstock over time 

(LCFRB 2010a). Other considerations will include the timing of juvenile releases to 

minimize impacts to natural-origin fish (LCFRB 2010a). 

In the North Fork Lewis subbasin, the Lewis River spring Chinook salmon program will 

be used to reintroduce spring Chinook salmon upstream of the hydrosystem. The Lewis 

hatchery spring Chinook salmon broodstock was developed from outside stocks, 

principally Cowlitz spring Chinook salmon, but currently is sustained without transfer 

from other hatcheries. As part of the reintroduction programs, facilities and operational 

strategies for these hatchery programs will address space, broodstock development, 

rearing methods, transfer of fish, marking strategies, and monitoring and evaluation 

(LCFRB 2010a).

In the near term, managing fisheries to meet hatchery escapement goals in the Cowlitz 

and Lewis systems is critical because recovery of spring Chinook salmon in those 

systems depends on the success of hatchery reintroduction programs, including the 

ability to collect enough fish at the hatcheries to meet the needs of the reintroduction 

program. Managing fisheries to meet hatchery escapement goals is therefore a key nearterm strategy that integrates both harvest and hatchery objectives. As the reintroduction 

proceeds and natural production is established above the dams, the hatchery programs 

may shift to integrated supplementation to reduce risks to reestablished natural 

populations (as a first priority) and to improve the fitness of the hatchery stock (as a 

secondary priority). A matrix will be developed to manage naturally spawning fish in 

the broodstock, adult escapement to natural production areas and to the hatcheries, and 

hatchery fish on the spawning grounds (LCFRB 2010a).

To minimize potential predation on subyearling fall Chinook and chum salmon, the 

Washington management unit plan also calls for hatchery spring Chinook salmon

release strategies that encourage rapid migration through the lower Cowlitz and Lewis; 

these strategies include volitional release, optimum release size, and release downstream 

of principal chum rearing areas (LCFRB 2010a).

In the Kalama and Sandy subbasins, hatchery programs will continue to produce fish for 

harvest concurrent with efforts to reduce impacts of hatchery fish on the natural 

populations. The spring Chinook salmon hatchery program in the Kalama is operated 

for fishery enhancement but with a dual supplementation objective: spring Chinook 

salmon that exceed broodstock needs are released above lower Kalama Falls to spawn 

naturally. Here, hatchery strategies will focus on (1) developing protocols regarding 

how many fish to pass upstream and (2) integrating hatchery and wild broodstock in the 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-44

future after wild production is established. In the Sandy subbasin, ODFW will 

implement actions designed to meet the pHOS target of 10 percent or less established by 

ODFW for populations in Oregon targeted for high persistence probability. These 

actions will include acclimation practices to reduce straying, use of flows to attract more 

fish to the hatchery, and, potentially, the use of a trap to sort hatchery-origin fish within 

Cedar Creek and/or at the acclimation facilities. The Sandy spring Chinook salmon

program formerly was an integrated hatchery program and now is being operated as a 

segregated program. ODFW intends to develop a matrix to govern take of natural-origin 

adults for inclusion in hatchery broodstock once the population has recovered to levels 

that can support an integrated hatchery program. Achieving the pHOS target for the 

Sandy spring Chinook salmon population is a high priority because the Sandy is one of 

the healthiest spring Chinook populations in the ESU. If the target has not been achieved 

by the year 2022, NMFS will urge other means of reducing pHOS, such as reducing 

hatchery smolt releases or moving production to another subbasin. 

Gorge Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Strategy

The hatchery strategy for the Gorge spring Chinook stratum involves the continuation of 

hatchery reintroduction efforts in the Hood subbasin, and a potential hatchery 

reintroduction program in the White Salmon subbasin now that Condit Dam has been

removed. (The dam was breached in October 2011 and completely removed in 

September 2012.)

The historical spring Chinook salmon population in the Hood subbasin is considered 

extirpated, and Deschutes river stock (an out-of-ESU stock) is being used for a hatchery 

reintroduction program.50 The recovery strategy calls for the program to continue and 

eventually be developed into an integrated hatchery/natural program. Specific 

strategies include moving toward in-basin rearing of hatchery spring Chinook salmon

for better local adaptation of the Deschutes stock, working with the Confederated Tribes 

of Warm Springs to evaluate reintroduction and explore alternatives if the existing 

program is not successful, working with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs to 

develop a sliding scale for take of wild spring Chinook salmon broodstock for the 

integrated hatchery program, and installing an adult fish ladder and fish trap at Moving 

Falls to remove stray hatchery spring Chinook salmon from natural spawning areas.51

The recovery strategy also includes reevaluation of the program at some point and 

exploration of alternatives (including alternative broodstock) if the current program is 

not successful.

The historical spring Chinook salmon population also is extirpated in the White Salmon 

subbasin because until recently Condit Dam, which is operated by PacifiCorp, has 

blocked access to virtually all historical spawning habitat. Under the terms of a 1999 

FERC decommissioning agreement and a 2006 Biological Opinion, PacifiCorp breached 

Condit Dam in October 2011 and removed the dam in 2012. The White Salmon Working 

Group, which is composed of federal, state, and tribal fisheries managers as well as 

 50 Some natural production is occurring in the Hood subbasin. At this time, the origin of that natural 

production is unknown.

51 Note that ODFW 2010, p. 270, action ID 300 - HD, describes plans for a floating weir; subsequently, 

managers determined that a fish ladder and trap were more appropriate in this location. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-45

representatives of PacifiCorp, recommended that, once the dam has been removed, 

natural escapement and production be monitored over a 4- to 5-year period, at which 

point the need and suitability for hatchery supplementation would be evaluated. If 

hatchery supplementation is needed, the working group has recommended that an 

integrated Klickitat hatchery spring Chinook salmon stock be developed and used as the 

brood source for juvenile release into the White Salmon subbasin. 

The working group has noted that the 4- to 5-year monitoring period also will allow 

time to explore production capacity at the Klickitat Hatchery and develop the integrated 

spring Chinook salmon broodstock. The working group determined that the Klickitat 

Hatchery spring Chinook salmon program would be the best source of broodstock for 

reintroduction to the White Salmon, even though it is not part of the Lower Columbia 

River Chinook salmon ESU. Two other potential broodstock sources are the Lewis River 

hatchery spring Chinook salmon program in Washington and the Sandy River spring 

Chinook salmon program in Oregon. The Lewis River program was excluded from 

consideration for use in the White Salmon because it is needed for reintroduction efforts 

in the Lewis subbasin, and production in the Sandy River is constrained by broodstock 

collection and funding shortfalls (NMFS 2013).

In both the Hood and White Salmon subbasins, managers are either using (in the Hood) 

or considering using (in the White Salmon) out-of-ESU broodstock for reintroduction 

efforts. In general, these subbasins are in a transition area between the Lower Columbia 

and Mid-Columbia ESUs. The Deschutes population appears more aligned with the 

Mid-Columbia ESU and the Hood population with the Lower Columbia ESU, although 

geographically these subbasins are clearly part of a transitional area. There has been 

discussion among NMFS scientists about whether to recommend assigning populations 

in the Klickitat and White Salmon subbasin to the Lower Columbia or Mid-Columbia 

ESU. In its most recent 5-year review, NMFS noted the transitional nature of this area

and that it would be reasonable to assign the Klickitat spring Chinook population to 

either ESU but recommended maintaining the existing ESU boundaries (75 Federal 

Register 50448). In addition, options for broodstock in the White Salmon and Hood 

subbasins are limited by extirpations and other factors. 

In the case of the Hood population, NMFS is supportive of efforts to reestablish natural 

production in the Hood subbasin. As noted above, the current hatchery program in the 

subbasin uses broodstock from the adjacent Deschutes River hatchery program, a MidColumbia ESU stock. The natural stock restoration strategy for the Hood River should 

include periodic genetic assessments to determine whether there are indications of local 

adaptation and/or contributions representative of the Lower Columbia fall Chinook 

lineage. NMFS will work with co-managers throughout the implementation and 

adaptive management process to consider options for incorporating fish from the Lower 

Columbia Chinook salmon ESU into the Hood River population and to evaluate the 

most appropriate ESU membership of this population. 

NMFS also supports efforts to reestablish natural production in the White Salmon 

subbasin, either through recolonization or through hatchery reintroduction, as 

appropriate, now that Condit Dam has been removed. (The dam was breached in 

October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012.) Because NMFS noted in its 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-46

most recent 5-year review (76 Federal Register 50448) that it would be reasonable to 

reassign the Klickitat population to either the Middle Columbia or the Lower Columbia 

River Chinook salmon ESU, the use of Klickitat stock for reintroduction in the White 

Salmon subbasin provides a more fluid situation in terms of ultimate ESU membership 

than does the use of Deschutes stock in the Hood subbasin. As in the Hood, NMFS 

expects that future 5-year reviews will reevaluate the most appropriate ESU 

membership for Klickitat and White Salmon populations.52

7.4.3.7 Predation Strategy

The regional predation strategy (see Section 4.6.2) involves reducing predation by birds, 

fish, and marine mammals and will benefit all Lower Columbia ESUs, including spring 

Chinook salmon. 

7.4.3.8 Critical Uncertainties

Each aspect of the spring Chinook salmon recovery strategy has a number of critical 

uncertainties. For all ESUs, there are uncertainties regarding how habitat actions will 

translate into changes in productivity and capacity (Roni et al. 2011). Prioritizing and 

identifying next steps in resolving uncertainties is a near-term priority. Critical 

uncertainties specific to the Lower Columbia River spring Chinook salmon recovery 

strategy include the following:

• Effective methods of providing adequate downstream passage efficiency for 

juveniles migrating past tributary dams

• Effectiveness of natural recolonization (White Salmon) and hatchery 

reintroduction programs (Cowlitz, North Fork Lewis, Hood) and the pace at 

which these populations become functioning and self-sustaining; appropriate 

stock to use where reintroduction is necessary

• Productivity of reintroduced stocks in upper portions of subbasins

• Effectiveness of efforts to reduce straying in the Sandy and Hood subbasins now 

that Marmot and Powerdale dams have been removed 

• Short-term and long-term survival benefits and risks at the population scale as a 

result of changes in hatchery production, changes in hatchery operation, and 

under various harvest rates 

• How to reduce the risks of harvest of very small populations while still 

maintaining harvest opportunities on hatchery-origin fish

 52 The NMFS Recovery Implementation Science Team is currently developing a two-part report on the 

subject of reintroductions in the Columbia River Basin. The first part will address general principles for 

planning and implementing a reintroduction effort for anadromous salmonids. The second part will 

evaluate the biological benefit of a reintroduction in Columbia Basin regions from which anadromous 

salmonids have been extirpated. The final report is expected in 2012.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-47

• Adequacy of actions to protect and restore watershed processes in maintaining 

habitat quality in upper basins (where spring Chinook salmon spawn) in the face 

of climate change 

• Degree of pinniped predation on spring Chinook salmon in the Columbia River 

estuary

• The historical role of the Gorge populations and the appropriate persistence 

probabilities for these populations 

• Most appropriate boundary between the Mid-Columbia and Lower Columbia 

river Chinook salmon ESUs53

These critical uncertainties represent preliminary priorities identified by Oregon and 

Washington recovery planners and NMFS Northwest Regional Office and Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center staff during a November 2010 workshop. They are preliminary 

priorities only (and are not in ranked order); as described in Chapter 10 additional 

discussion among local recovery planners and NMFS staff will be needed to finalize 

future research priorities for Lower Columbia River steelhead. 

The management unit plans identify more comprehensive critical uncertainties and 

research, monitoring, and evaluation needs that, along with the list above, will provide

the basis for these future discussions. The White Salmon and Washington management 

unit plans have discrete sections on critical uncertainties for all of the ESUs in general 

(see Section 8.3 of NMFS 2013, pp. 8-4 through 8-6, and Section 9.6 of LCFRB 2010a, pp. 

9-68 through 9-73), while the Oregon management unit plan embeds relevant critical 

uncertainties within subsections on monitoring and evaluation needs related to the four 

VSP parameters and five ESA listing factors (see Sections 8.4 and 8.5, respectively, of 

ODFW 2010). In addition, in June 2010, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board completed 

the Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program for Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead

as a companion to its recovery plan (LCFRB 2010b). This document also describes critical 

uncertainties. The list above also does not include critical uncertainties that apply to 

multiple ESUs; these will be discussed and considered as decisions are made in 

implementation. In addition, the critical uncertainties above are of a technical nature; 

there are also many critical uncertainties related to social, political, and economic issues. 

Critical uncertainties are one element of research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) and 

adaptive management, which will be key components of the spring Chinook salmon

recovery strategy (see Chapter 10 for more discussion of RME and adaptive 

management for this recovery plan). 

 53 In its 2011 5-year review (NMFS 2011b), NMFS discussed uncertainties regarding the most appropriate 

boundary between the Mid-Columbia and Lower Columbia River ESUs. NMFS stated that, given the 

transitional nature of the Klickitat River Chinook salmon population, it might be reasonable either to 

reassign that population from the Middle Columbia to the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU or 

to maintain the existing ESU boundary. NMFS recommended maintaining the existing boundary but will 

reexamine the issue in future 5-year reviews as new information becomes available.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-48

7.5 Fall Chinook Salmon Analysis: Limiting Factors, Threat 

Reductions, and Recovery Strategies

7.5.1 Fall Chinook Salmon Limiting Factors

The tule fall Chinook salmon component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon 

ESU is limited by a combination of factors: widespread habitat degradation in both 

tributaries and the Columbia River estuary; a history of high harvest rates and largescale hatchery production, with associated population depletions, reductions in 

productivity, and loss of genetic diversity; the effects of tributary and mainstem dams 

on critical downstream habitat; and predation by native fish, birds, and marine 

mammals. In addition, the productivity and diversity of fall Chinook salmon continue to 

be affected by ongoing straying of hatchery fish, and harvest impacts continue to be 

significant. For some populations, spatial structure is constrained by dams; for many 

more populations, spatial structure is constrained by urban, agricultural, and 

transportation development in lowland areas; development also contributes to losses in 

abundance as habitat quality is reduced.

Table 7-7 and the text that follows summarize baseline limiting factors and threats for 

Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon strata based on population-specific limiting 

factors and threats identified in the management unit plans. In cases where conditions 

have changed significantly since the management unit plans’ analyses of limiting factors 

and threats (e.g., if harvest rates have dropped or a dam is no longer present), this is 

noted in the text. Unless otherwise noted, NMFS agrees that the management unit plans’ 

identification of limiting factors provide a credible hypothesis for understanding 

population performance and identifying management actions.

Because the individual management unit plans used somewhat different terms in 

identifying limiting factors, NMFS has translated those terms into standardized and 

more general terminology taken from a NMFS “data dictionary” of possible ecological 

concerns that could affect salmon and steelhead (Hamm 2012; see Section 5.4). In 

addition, in Table 7-7, NMFS has rolled up the population-specific limiting factors (see 

Appendix H) to the stratum level—a process that has resulted in some loss of specificity. 

In addition, each management unit plan used a different approach for identifying 

limiting factors and threats (see Section 5.3). One difference relevant to the crosswalk is 

that while the Oregon management unit plan identified primary and secondary limiting 

factors for each population in each threat category,54 the Washington management unit 

plan categorized limiting factors in this way only for habitat-related limiting factors, and 

the White Salmon plan and the estuary module did not use the primary and secondary 

terminology. For the crosswalk and this table, NMFS assigned primary and secondary 

status to non-habitat limiting factors for Washington populations (based on the 

Washington management unit plan’s quantification of threat impacts, and the 

professional judgment of Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s staff and consultants). 

For populations that historically spawned in the White Salmon subbasin, NMFS staff 

inferred primary and secondary designations based on discussion in the Washington 

 54 In the Oregon management unit plan, primary limiting factors are those that have the greatest impact and 

secondary limiting factors have a lesser but still significant impact.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-49

and White Salmon management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, NMFS 2013). It is likely that 

some apparent distinctions in results between Washington and Oregon populations are 

artifacts of differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies and not an actual 

difference in conditions or their effects on salmon and steelhead populations. In 

addition, there is not necessarily a bright line between primary and secondary limiting 

factor designations. Nevertheless, NMFS believes that the designations are useful, 

particularly for looking across ESUs and populations and identifying patterns (see 

Chapter 4).

The management unit plans provide more detail on limiting factors and threats affecting 

Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon, including magnitude, spatial scale, and 

relative impact, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, Chapter 3 and various 

sections of Volume II; ODFW 2010, pp. 116 to 128; and NMFS 2013, Chapter 5).55 For a 

regional perspective on limiting factors and threats that affect multiple salmon and 

steelhead ESUs, see Chapter 4 of this recovery plan. For a description of the data 

dictionary and the “crosswalk” tables that NMFS used to correlate management unit 

terms for limiting factors with the standardized NMFS terminology at the population 

scale, and the approach for rolling up from the population to the stratum scale, see 

Section 5.4 and Appendix H.

Management unit recovery planners in Oregon and Washington recognized that six 

major categories of manageable threats—tributary habitat, estuary habitat, hydropower, 

harvest, hatcheries, and predation—were useful as an organizing construct for grouping 

limiting factors, quantifying impacts on population productivity, and determining how 

much different categories of threats would need to be reduced to close the gap between 

baseline and target population status. Planners in both Washington and Oregon 

quantified the impacts of each of these major threat categories on population status, 

along with a reduction in each impact that would be consistent with achieving 

population target status. The results of that analysis are presented in Section 7.5.2 and 

provide a related but slightly different perspective on limiting factors. The threat 

reduction targets also allow actions to be scaled to achieve a specific impact reduction, 

and to be linked to monitoring and performance benchmarks.

 55 Limiting factors shown in the table for the White Salmon population reflect information from both the 

Washington (LCFRB 2010a) and White Salmon (NMFS 2013) management unit plans.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-50

Table 7-7

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Fall Chinook Salmon: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Coast Fall Cascade Fall Gorge Fall

Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Riparian 

Condition

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices 

All

Secondary for 

Elochoman

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

Washougal

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

White Salmon

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Channel 

Structure and 

Form

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All

Secondary for 

Elochoman

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

Washougal

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

White Salmon

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Peripheral and 

Transitional 

Habitats: Side 

Channel and 

Wetland 

Conditions

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All

Secondary for 

Elochoman

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

Washougal

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Primary for Upper 

and Lower Gorge 

and Hood

juveniles

Peripheral and 

Transitional 

Habitats: 

Floodplain 

Conditions

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All

Secondary for 

Elochoman

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

Washougal

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Primary for Upper 

and Lower Gorge 

and Hood

juveniles

Sediment 

Conditions

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor 

All

Primary for WA

juveniles, 

secondary for

juveniles in OR 

populations56

Secondary for OR 

and Washougal

juveniles, primary 

for juveniles in all 

other WA 

populations

Primary for White 

Salmon 

juveniles,57

secondary for 

Hood juveniles

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that 

impair riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dams

A,P,D

Primary for 

juveniles in WA 

populations

Primary for 

Toutle, 

Coweeman, 

Kalama, and 

Lewis juveniles, 

secondary for 

Clackamas (land 

use and dams), 

Sandy, Salmon 

Creek, and 

Washougal

juveniles.

 56 This distinction is likely an artifact of differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies between the 

two states and not an actual difference in sediment conditions in tributary streams or their effects on fall 

Chinook populations. 

57 The designation of sediment conditions as a primary limiting factor for White Salmon fall Chinook 

juveniles is based on presumed high fine sediment loads delivered from the former lakebed to the lower 

river, now that Condit Dam has been removed. The White Salmon management unit plan notes that the net 

effect of the removal of Condit Dam on habitat will need to be assessed (see Table 5-2 of NMFS 2013)..
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-51

Table 7-7

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Fall Chinook Salmon: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Coast Fall Cascade Fall Gorge Fall

Water Quantity 

(Flow)

Dams, land use, 

and water 

withdrawals for 

irrigation, 

municipal uses, 

and hatchery 

operations

All

Primary for 

Youngs Bay and 

Big Creek, and 

Scappoose

juveniles, 

secondary for 

Grays/Chinook

adults, secondary 

for juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Secondary for 

Upper and Lower 

Gorge and Hood

juveniles (land 

use and dams); 

primary for Hood 

juveniles 

(irrigation 

withdrawals)

Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors58

Toxic 

Contaminants

Agricultural 

chemicals, urban 

and industrial 

practices

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Food59

(Shift from 

macrodetrital- to 

microdetritalbased food web)

Dam reservoirs All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Peripheral and 

Transitional 

Habitats: Estuary 

Condition 

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices, 

transportation 

corridor, 

mainstem dams

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Channel 

Structure and 

Form

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Sediment 

Conditions

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/transpor

tation corridor, 

dams

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

 58 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this table and Section 7.4.1.2 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River fall Chinook 

salmon populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine 

limiting factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly 

revised) through adaptive management.

59 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-52

Table 7-7

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Fall Chinook Salmon: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Coast Fall Cascade Fall Gorge Fall

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that 

impair riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dam 

reservoirs

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quantity 

(Flow)

Columbia River 

mainstem dams All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Hydropower Limiting Factors

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Bonneville Dam All

Secondary for 

adults and 

juveniles in all 

populations 

Habitat Quantity 

(Inundation) Bonneville Dam All

Primary for Upper 

Gorge adults and 

juveniles, 

secondary for 

Hood juveniles

and White Salmon 

adults

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Tributary Dams All

Primary for Upper 

Cowlitz adults and 

juveniles, 

secondary for 

Sandy juveniles

Primary for White 

Salmon adults 

and juveniles, 

secondary for 

Hood adults and 

juveniles

Harvest Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Fisheries A,D Primary for adults 

in all populations

Primary for adults 

in all populations

Primary for adults 

in all populations

Hatchery Limiting Factors

Food60

Smolts from all 

Columbia Basin 

hatcheries 

competing for 

food and space in 

the estuary 

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Population 

Diversity

Stray hatchery 

fish interbreeding 

with wild fish

A,P,D Primary for adults 

in all populations

Secondary for 

Coweeman

adults, primary for 

adults in all other 

populations

Secondary for 

White Salmon

adults, primary for 

adults in all other 

populations

Predation Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Land use A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

 60 Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia Basin hatcheries 

may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and habitat space in the estuary. NMFS 

2011a and LCFRB (2010) identified competition for food and space among hatchery and natural-origin 

juveniles in the estuary as a critical uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed 

competition for food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define and describe the 

scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin 

salmon in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore ocean habitats.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-53

Table 7-7

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Fall Chinook Salmon: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Coast Fall Cascade Fall Gorge Fall

Direct Mortality Dams A,P,D

Secondary for 

Upper Gorge and 

Hood juveniles 

(non-salmonid 

fish)

7.5.1.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions, along with degraded floodplain habitat, 

have significant negative impacts on juvenile tule fall Chinook salmon throughout the 

ESU and are identified as primary limiting factors for all populations except the 

Elochoman/Skamokawa, Washougal, and White Salmon, where they are identified as 

secondary factors. Extensive channelization, diking, wetland conversion, stream 

clearing, and, in some subbasins, gravel extraction have barred tule Chinook salmon

from historically productive habitats and simplified much of the remaining tributary 

habitats, weakening watershed processes that are essential to the maintenance of healthy 

ecosystems. Degraded riparian conditions and channel structure and form issues are 

also a primary limiting factor for all populations except the Elochoman/Skamokawa, 

Washougal, and White Salmon, where they are identified as secondary factors. The lack 

of large woody debris and appropriately sized gravel in the remaining accessible 

tributary habitat has significantly reduced the amount of suitable spawning and rearing 

habitat for tule fall Chinook salmon. 

Sediment conditions are identified as a primary limiting factor for all Washington 

populations except the Washougal (for which they are considered a secondary limiting 

factor) and are identified as a secondary limiting factor for the Oregon portion of the 

ESU.61 The high density of forest and rural roads throughout the area, as well as timber 

harvest practices and other land use patterns on unstable slopes adjacent to riparian 

habitat, contributes to an abundance of fine sediment in tributary streams.62 The 

resulting excess fine sediment covers spawning gravel, limiting egg development and 

incubation, and increases turbidity. In addition, water quality, specifically elevated 

water temperature brought about through land use, lack of functioning riparian habitat, 

and dam reservoirs, is a primary limiting factor for most Washington populations, along 

with the Clackamas and Sandy populations. 

In the Coast fall Chinook stratum, tributary habitat limiting factors are largely the same 

as those described above for fall Chinook salmon as a whole. However, for the Youngs 

Bay, Big Creek, and Scappoose tule fall Chinook salmon populations, water quantity 

issues related to altered hydrology and flow timing also have been identified as a 

 61 This distinction most likely is an artifact of differences in the limiting factor assessment methodologies 

used by Oregon and Washington and not an actual physical difference in sediment conditions in tributary 

streams or their effects on Chinook populations. 

62 By itself, road density is not necessarily a good measure of delivery of fine sediment to streams.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-54

primary limiting factor. These water quantity issues are caused by land use practices on 

upland slopes that have reduced soil stability and vegetative cover, increased 

impermeable surfaces, and altered drainage systems, resulting in altered water storage 

and delivery to streams. Many stream systems have higher peak flows and lower base 

flows than they did historically (ODFW 2010). Past and current land uses in Coast 

ecozone watersheds have led to these conditions. Private and state forest land 

predominates in the upper reaches of these watersheds. Lower reaches are mostly in 

agricultural and rural residential use and have been extensively modified by bank 

stabilization, levees, and tide gates.

For the Cascade fall Chinook stratum, tributary habitat limiting factors are largely the 

same as those described above for fall Chinook salmon as a whole, except that spawning 

by the Clackamas, Sandy,63 and Cowlitz fall Chinook salmon populations is also 

negatively by impaired gravel recruitment related to tributary dams. Land uses that 

have led to the conditions limiting habitat productivity in this stratum include forest 

management and timber harvest, agriculture, rural residential and urban development, 

and gravel extraction. A mix of private, state, and federal forest land predominates in 

the upper mainstem and headwater tributaries of the Cascade subbasins, while the 

lower mainstem and tributary reaches of most subbasins are characterized by 

agricultural and rural residential land use, with some urban development, especially in 

the Salmon Creek and lower Clackamas subbasins. The Oregon management unit plan 

notes that in the Clackamas subbasin, high water temperatures are attributed in part to 

hydropower reservoirs. 

A unique issue in the Cascade fall Chinook stratum is legacy effects in the Toutle 

subbasin of the 1980 Mount St. Helen’s eruption. The North Fork Toutle in particular 

was heavily affected by sedimentation from the eruption. A sediment retention structure 

was constructed on the North Fork Toutle in an attempt to prevent continued severe 

sedimentation of stream channels and associated flood conveyance, transportation, and 

habitat degradation problems. The structure currently blocks access to as many as 

50 miles of habitat for anadromous fish. Although fish are transported around the 

structure via a trap and haul system, the structure remains a source of chronic fine 

sediment to the lower river; this reduces habitat quality and has interfered with fish 

collection at the base of the structure.

In the Gorge fall Chinook stratum, tributary habitat limiting factors are largely the same 

as those described above for fall Chinook salmon as a whole, save for some unique 

water quantity and habitat issues. Water quantity problems caused by irrigation 

withdrawals and low-head hydro diversions have been identified as primary limiting 

factors for the Hood population. Degraded habitat quality resulting from transportation 

corridor development and maintenance is considered a primary threat for the Upper 

and Lower Gorge populations and for Hood juveniles. These limiting factors result from 

past and current land uses that include a mix of private, state, and federal forest land in 

the upper mainstem and headwater reaches of the Gorge subbasins, and transportation 

 63 Gravel recruitment may have improved since the removal of Marmot and Little Sandy dams in 2009; 

however, the Oregon management unit plan also identifies gravel recruitment as a result of the city of 

Portland’s water supply system in the Bull Run watershed as a secondary limiting factor for the Sandy fall 

Chinook populations (ODFW 2010, p. 116).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-55

and rural residential land uses, with some urban development, in lower mainstem and 

tributary reaches. Highway and transportation corridors run parallel to the Columbia 

River shoreline, traversing all creek drainages in ways that restrict access and disconnect 

upland and lowland habitat processes. Upper Gorge fall Chinook salmon also face 

habitat issues caused by inundation from Bonneville Reservoir. 

Habitat within the White Salmon subbasin was altered by the breaching of Condit Dam 

(in October 2011, with full removal in September 2012). Alterations include near-term 

negative effects from sediment release and scouring. Scientists and managers expect 

long-term positive effects as the result of restoration of natural flow regimes and 

sediment transport, but monitoring is needed to evaluate habitat and fish response to 

dam removal, and additional assessment of habitat limiting factors will be needed to 

refine understanding of limiting factors. 

7.5.1.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors64

Estuary habitat conditions are important for juvenile fall Chinook salmon, which spend 

considerable time rearing in the estuary. Water quantity issues related to altered 

hydrology and flow timing are identified as a primary limiting factor for all populations, 

as is impaired sediment and sand routing; these limiting factors are associated with 

hydroregulation at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the Columbia Basin, and, in 

the case of sediment issues, land uses both past and present. Much of the land 

surrounding the Columbia River estuary is in agricultural or rural residential use and 

has been extensively modified via dikes, levees, bank stabilization, and tide gates. 

Altered hydrology and sediment routing influence habitat-forming processes, the 

quantity and accessibility of habitats such as side channels and wetlands, the dynamics 

of the Columbia River plume, and the estuarine food web. Channel structure issues, in 

the form of reduced habitat complexity and diversity, and reduced access to peripheral 

and transitional habitats such as side channels and wetlands also are identified as 

primary limiting factors for juveniles from all populations. Again, simplification of 

channel structure is related to conversion of land to other uses—agricultural, rural 

residential, and as a transportation corridor—while juveniles’ access to side channels 

and wetlands is impaired by these same land uses but also by flow alterations caused by 

mainstem dams. 

Secondary limiting factors in the estuary that affect tule fall Chinook salmon are 

exposure to toxic contaminants (from urban, agricultural, and industrial sources) and 

elevated late summer and fall water temperatures, which are related to (1) land use 

 64 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this section and in Table 7-7 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River fall Chinook 

salmon populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine 

limiting factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly 

revised) through adaptive management. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-56

practices that impair riparian function or decrease streamflow, and (2) large hydropower 

reservoirs. Altered food web dynamics involving a transition from a macrodetrital-based 

food web to a microdetrital-based food web also are considered a secondary limiting 

factor for all populations.65 These changes in the estuarine food web are caused 

primarily by increased microdetrital inputs from hydropower reservoirs and the loss of 

wetland habitats through diking and filling. 

For the Coast stratum populations in particular, improvements to estuary habitat may 

be crucial. Habitat analysis indicates that populations in the Coast ecozone historically 

relied on wetland areas at the confluences of the tributaries and the mainstem Columbia

(Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2010).

7.5.1.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors

Direct hydropower impacts are low on most Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon 

populations, with the exception of the Upper Cowlitz, the Sandy, and the Gorge stratum 

populations. Flow management operations at large storage reservoirs in the interior of 

the Columbia Basin (Grand Coulee, Dworshak, etc.) affect all juvenile Lower Columbia 

River fall Chinook salmon in the lower mainstem and estuary, and potentially in the 

plume—primarily by altering flow volume and timing. These alterations impair 

sediment routing, influence habitat-forming processes, reduce access to peripheral 

habitat, and change the dynamics of the Columbia River plume and the estuarine food 

web (see Section 7.5.1.2).66 Moreover, the large reservoirs associated with mainstem 

dams contribute to elevated water temperatures downstream in late summer and fall. 

For the Upper Gorge, Hood, and White Salmon populations, which spawn above 

Bonneville Dam, passage issues at Bonneville and inundation of historical spawning 

habitat by Bonneville Reservoir are identified as secondary limiting factors. 

There are no large tributary dams in the Coast ecozone, but tributary dams affect 

Cascade and Gorge fall Chinook salmon populations. In the Cascade fall Chinook 

stratum, impaired habitat access and passage caused by tributary hydropower are 

identified as a primary limiting factor for the Upper Cowlitz fall Chinook salmon

population. The hatchery Barrier Dam in the Cowlitz subbasin prevents all volitional 

passage of anadromous fish above RM 49.5. Passage of downstream fry for the Sandy 

fall Chinook salmon population also was identified as a secondary limiting factor; 

however, the PGE Bull Run Hydroelectric Project (consisting of Marmot and Little 

Sandy dams) in the Sandy subbasin was removed in 2007-2008, so this limiting factor 

has been addressed for the Sandy fall Chinook population. There are no tributary 

hydropower facilities in the Coweeman, Toutle, Kalama, East Fork Lewis, Salmon Creek, 

or Washougal subbasins.67 The Clackamas River Hydro Project was not identified as a 

 65 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 

66 It is likely that flow impacts of the hydropower system affect Lower Columbia River ESUs more through 

changes in habitat-forming processes (including impacts to the plume) and food web impacts than through 

changes in migratory travel time.

67 However, the North Fork Toutle sediment retention structure currently blocks access to as many as 50 

miles of habitat for anadromous fish.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-57

hydropower threat for the Clackamas fall Chinook salmon population, but the project 

does affect downstream habitat; these impacts are accounted for under the tributary 

habitat limiting factor. In Washington, the Merwin, Yale, and Swift dams block passage 

to the Upper North Fork Lewis (beginning with Merwin Dam at RM 20). However, 

recovery efforts for the Lewis River fall Chinook salmon population are focused in the 

East Fork and lower North Fork Lewis subbasins, so the Merwin, Yale, and Swift dams 

are not identified as a limiting factor for fall Chinook salmon. Spawning and rearing 

habitats for the Lower Cowlitz and Lewis River fall Chinook salmon populations are 

adversely affected by flow regulation in the Cowlitz and Lewis river hydropower 

systems, respectively (LCFRB 2010a). 

In the Gorge fall Chinook stratum, tributary hydropower impacts were identified as a 

primary limiting factor for the White Salmon fall Chinook salmon population (because,

until recently, Condit Dam has blocked all upstream passage on the White Salmon 

River) and a secondary limiting factor for the Hood population (because of impaired 

access to historical spawning habitat). Powerdale Dam on the Hood River was removed 

in 2010, so that limiting factor has been addressed. Condit Dam was breached in October 

2012 and completely removed in September 2012, so that limiting factor also has been 

addressed. Tributary hydropower is not a limiting factor for the Lower Gorge or Upper 

Gorge populations. However, for the three tule fall Chinook salmon populations that 

spawn above Bonneville Dam (the Hood, White Salmon, and Upper Gorge), passage 

issues at the dam and inundation of historical habitat by Bonneville Reservoir are 

secondary limiting factors. 

7.5.1.4 Harvest Limiting Factors

Harvest-related mortality is identified as a primary limiting factor for all tule fall 

Chinook salmon populations. Tule fall Chinook salmon harvest occurs primarily in 

Alaskan and Canadian ocean fisheries regulated under the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon 

Treaty. Additional harvest occurs in U.S. ocean commercial, tribal, and recreational 

fisheries off the Washington Coast and in mainstem Columbia River gillnet and 

recreational fisheries. Harvest impacts were as high as 69 percent during the years 1983 

to 1993. Since then they have been lowered steadily and significantly. For example, from 

1999 to 2006, harvest rate averaged 48 percent; tule fall Chinook salmon harvest rates 

recently have been further reduced—to 38 percent in 2009 and 2010 and 37 percent in 

2011 (NMFS 2008c). Harvest impacts on the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations are 

higher—estimated by ODFW to average 75 and 65 percent, respectively, from 1997 to 

2007—as a result of terminal fisheries targeting hatchery-origin fish in those subbasins. 

The Upper Gorge, Hood, and White Salmon populations also are subject to slightly 

higher harvest rates than the average for the ESU because they are intercepted in Zone 6 

tribal fisheries above Bonneville Dam. 

7.5.1.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors

Most fall Chinook salmon currently returning to lower Columbia tributaries are 

produced in hatcheries operated to produce fish for harvest. Hatchery production has 

been reduced from its peak in the late 1980s but continues to threaten the productivity of 

Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon. Population-level effects resulting from 

hatchery fish interbreeding with natural-origin fish are a primary limiting factor for all 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-58

populations. Hatchery straying, combined with past stock transfers, has likely altered 

the genetics of fall Chinook salmon populations and may have reduced diversity within 

the ESU. Out-of-ESU Rogue River bright fall Chinook salmon released into Youngs Bay 

to support terminal harvest have been recovered in the Grays River, potentially affecting 

genetics and diversity within that population. Productivity also has likely declined as a 

result of the influence of hatchery-origin fish. In addition, many scientists suspect that 

competition with or predation by hatchery-origin fall Chinook salmon affects natural 

population productivity. 

Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia 

Basin hatcheries may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and 

habitat space in the estuary. NMFS (2011a) and LCFRB (2010a) identified competition for 

food and space among hatchery and natural-origin juveniles in the estuary as a critical 

uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed competition for 

food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define 

and describe the scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between 

hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore ocean 

habitats. 

7.5.1.6 Predation Limiting Factors

Direct mortality from predation is a secondary limiting factor for all fall Chinook salmon

populations. Anthropogenic changes to habitat structure have increased predator 

abundance and effectiveness and led to increased predation by Caspian terns, doublecrested cormorants, and various other seabird species in the Columbia River estuary and 

plume. Predation by non-salmonid fish (primarily northern pikeminnows) throughout 

the freshwater portions of the lower Columbia mainstem, but primarily at Bonneville 

Dam and hatchery release locations, is a secondary limiting factor for Upper Gorge and 

Hood juvenile tule fall Chinook salmon populations. 

7.5.2 Fall Chinook Salmon Baseline Threat Impacts and Threat Reduction Targets

Table 7-8 shows the estimated impact on each Lower Columbia River fall Chinook 

salmon population resulting from potentially manageable threats, organized into six 

threat categories: tributary habitat degradation, estuary habitat degradation, 

hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation. Both baseline and target impacts are 

shown, with the targets representing mortality levels that would be consistent with 

long-term recovery goals. Impact values indicate the percentage reduction in abundance 

and productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat 

category. The value associated with any particular threat category can be interpreted as 

the percent reduction in abundance and productivity from historical conditions if that 

threat category were the only one affecting the population. Cumulative values (both 

baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive. The table also shows the 

percentage improvements in population productivity and abundance (i.e., the 

percentage improvement in survival) that is needed to achieve the target impacts and 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-59

corresponding population status.68 For populations where the survival improvement 

needed is larger than 500 percent, Table 7-8 does not report the exact value, in part 

because the value is highly uncertain.69

As an example, the baseline status of the Grays/Chinook fall Chinook salmon

population, circa 1999, has been severely reduced by the combined effects of multiple 

threats. The cumulative reduction in status was estimated at 92.6 percent from the 

multiplicative impacts of multiple threats acting across the salmon life cycle. Thus, 

current status is just 7.4 percent of the historical potential with no human impact. 

Tributary habitat, harvest, and hatchery impacts each accounted for reductions in 

population productivity of 40 percent or more, with corresponding reductions in 

abundance, spatial structure, and diversity. The Washington management unit plan 

identifies a recovery strategy involving significant reductions in the impact of several 

threats. For instance, the plan targets tributary habitat impacts to be reduced from the 

estimated baseline level of 40 percent to 16 percent (i.e., an approximately 120 percent 

improvement relative to baseline conditions). With the targeted reductions in individual 

impacts, the cumulative effect of all impacts would drop from 92.6 percent at baseline to 

81.1 percent at the target status. This change would translate into a 150 percent 

improvement in survival relative to the baseline. Although the population would still be 

experiencing abundance and productivity that are 74.7 percent lower than historical 

conditions, the extinction risk at this mortality level would be estimated sufficient to 

meet the targets for this plan.

Oregon and Washington recovery planners used somewhat different definitions or 

methods to quantify the estimated impacts of anthropogenic threats. Baseline impacts 

for Washington populations reflect conditions prevalent at the time of ESA listing (circa 

1999), while the baseline impacts for Oregon populations reflect conditions through 

2004. Dam impacts for Washington populations reflect passage mortality, habitat loss 

caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas; for Oregon 

populations, the estimates in the “Dams” column of Table 7-8 reflect direct upstream 

and downstream passage mortality only, with other dam impacts accounted for in the 

habitat and predation threat categories. Hatchery impacts for Washington populations 

were limited to not more than 50 percent per population, in accordance with Hatchery 

Scientific Review Group (HSRG) assessments of the potential for genetic effects 

(Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2009); Oregon recovery planners estimated that 

hatchery impacts were equivalent to one-half the rates at which hatchery fish were 

found on natural spawning grounds, based on analyzed relationships and reflecting 

 68 The percentage of survival improvement needed is the percentage change in net impacts, is derived from 

information in the Washington and Oregon management unit plans, and is calculated as follows: [(1-

CumulativeTarget)-(1-CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. These values generally correspond to 

population improvement targets identified for Washington populations in LCFRB (2010). Comparable 

numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling approach that Oregon 

recovery planners used to derive target impacts.

69 For some populations—many of them small—the survival improvement needed is very large and highly 

uncertain because various other factors also are uncertain (i.e., the population’s baseline persistence 

probability, the exact degree of impact of human activities on tributary habitat, and whether the 

population’s response to reductions in impacts will be linear). In addition, very small populations do not 

necessarily follow predictable patterns in their response to changing conditions. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-60

concern about genetic and ecological effects. Washington recovery planners derived 

estimates of impacts to tributary habitat using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment 

(EDT) model. Oregon recovery planners estimated the mortality associated with estuary 

habitat degradation, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation and assigned all 

remaining mortality (relative to the difference between the current modeled abundance 

and estimated historical abundance) to tributary habitat. In general, the tributary habitat 

values in Table 7-8 have the highest degree of uncertainty relative to the other threat 

categories and, for Oregon populations, may include causes of mortality associated with 

the other threat categories but not directly captured in those mortality estimates. (See 

Section 5.5 for more on the methodologies used to estimate baseline impacts.)

Estimates of threat impacts are useful in showing the relative magnitude of impacts on 

each population. Given the differences in methodologies, some values in Table 7-8 for 

Oregon and Washington populations are not necessarily directly comparable. Thus, 

values for Oregon populations are most directly comparable to those for other Oregon 

populations, and values for Washington populations are most directly comparable to 

those for other Washington populations. Regardless of differences in specific threat 

impact definitions and methods, the net effect of changes from all threats is useful in 

understanding the magnitude of population improvement needed to achieve the target 

population status. 

The target impacts in Table 7-8 represent one of several possible combinations of threat 

reductions that could conceivably close the conservation gap and lead to a population 

achieving its target status. The particular threat reductions shown in Table 7-8 reflect 

policy decisions and the methodologies and assumptions used by the different recovery 

planning teams. (For a description of how target impacts were developed, see Section

5.6.) In estimating impacts, management unit recovery planners evaluated each threat 

category independently (i.e., values in the table reflect the mortality of Chinook salmon 

exposed to that particular category of threats, whether or not they are exposed to threats 

in other categories). The estimates of baseline threat impacts have high levels of 

uncertainty and in many cases should be considered working hypotheses that are 

testable as part of recovery plan implementation. Despite this uncertainty, it is the expert 

judgment of NMFS and management unit scientists that, based on the best available 

information at this time, the estimates of baseline threat impacts provide a reasonable 

estimate of the relative magnitude of different sources of anthropogenic mortality and 

serve as an adequate basis for designing initial recovery actions.70 As more and better 

information is collected, it will be applied to recovery efforts in an adaptive 

management framework.

As shown in Table 7-8, the baseline impacts from harvest, hatcheries, and loss and 

degradation of tributary habitat are significant for every fall Chinook salmon

population. Only for the Upper Cowlitz, Upper Gorge, and White Salmon populations 

does another threat category (hydropower) rise to the level of harvest, hatchery, and 

tributary habitat impacts. Estuarine habitat impacts likewise consistently affect all 

populations, although to a lesser degree than tributary habitat impacts.

 70 As implementation proceeds, research, monitoring, and evaluation and adaptive management will be key 

in helping to refine scientific understanding of the impact of threats on population persistence and of the 

extent to which management actions are reducing threats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-61

In the Coast and Cascade strata, much of the gains in fall Chinook salmon viability are 

targeted to be achieved through reductions in harvest, hatchery, and habitat impacts. 

This is the case for the Grays/Chinook, Elochoman/Skamokawa, Toutle, East Fork 

Lewis, Sandy, and Washougal populations. For the Scappoose population, target status 

is expected to be achieved primarily through reductions in hatchery and harvest 

impacts. In the Gorge stratum, some threat reductions are also targeted from 

hydropower actions, as the Upper Gorge, White Salmon, and Hood populations have 

been affected by dam passage issues at Bonneville, Powerdale, and Condit dams. 

(Powerdale Dam, on the Hood River, was removed in 2010; Condit Dam was breached 

in October 2011 and completely removed in September 2012). 

Impacts from multiple threat categories will be needed for most populations if they are 

to achieve their target status. Exceptions are the Youngs Bay, Big Creek, Upper Cowlitz, 

and Salmon Creek populations. As stabilizing populations, the Youngs Bay, Upper 

Cowlitz, and Salmon Creek populations are not targeted for reductions in any threat 

impacts. (However, recovery actions will still be needed for these populations to remain 

at their baseline status of low [for Youngs Bay] or very low.) Both the Youngs Bay and 

Big Creek populations will be used to provide harvest opportunity through terminal 

fisheries targeting hatchery fish; consequently, the proportion of hatchery-origin 

spawners (pHOS) and harvest impacts in these populations are expected to remain high. 

The Salmon Creek population is not targeted for threat reductions because of the highly 

urbanized nature of the subbasin and the extent of habitat degradation there. In the 

Upper Cowlitz subbasin, spring Chinook salmon recovery efforts are the focus of the 

recovery strategy, so the Upper Cowlitz fall Chinook population is not targeted for 

improvement in status (although as of 2010, fall Chinook are being transported and 

released into the Upper Cowlitz).

Four of the 21 fall Chinook salmon populations are targeted for significant reductions in 

every threat category, including hydropower (in the form of dam removal or 

improvements in upstream and downstream passage). These populations are the Toutle, 

Upper Gorge, White Salmon, and Hood. Of these, the Toutle and Hood are designated 

as primary and the Upper Gorge and White Salmon as contributing. The Hood 

population is targeted for dramatic and almost certainly unattainable threat reductions 

(i.e., reducing all threat categories except hydropower to zero).71

Reductions in predation are also targeted to contribute to achieving recovery goals for 

fall Chinook salmon; however, net reductions in predation impacts are smaller than 

those for the habitat, hatcheries, and harvest categories because the impact of predation 

threats is less.

More information on threat reduction scenarios, including methodologies used to 

determine baseline and target impacts, is available in the management unit plans 

(ODFW 2010, pp. 151-177 and LCFRB 2010a, pp. 4-30 through 4-33, and 6-49 through 6-

52).

 71 This is a function of the Oregon recovery planning team setting target status to meet recovery criteria, 

even if the criteria are likely to be unattainable because of intractable anthropogenic impacts. In addition, 

Oregon believes that the historical population structure designated in the Gorge stratum should be 

reassessed. For a discussion of this and other issues related to the Gorge strata and delisting criteria, see 

Sections 3.2.1 and 7.7.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-62

Table 7-8

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Fall Chinook 

Salmon Populations

Impacts at Baseline72 Impacts at Target

Population T. Hab73 Est74 Dams75 Harv76 Hat77 Pred78 Cumulative79 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

% Survival 

Improvement 

Needed80

Coast Fall

Youngs Bay (OR) 0.72 0.32 0.00 0.75 0.45 0.07 0.9757 0.72 0.26 0.00 0.70 0.45 0.04 0.9672 30

Grays/Chinook (WA) 0.40 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.50 0.09 0.9264 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.26 0.20 0.03 0.5611 >500

Big Creek (OR) 0.80 0.32 0.00 0.65 0.45 0.06 0.9754 0.58 0.26 0.00 0.60 0.45 0.04 0.9344 170

Eloch/Skam (WA) 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.50 0.09 0.9142 0.21 0.17 0.00 0.46 0.35 0.06 0.7837 150

Clatskanie (OR) 0.99 0.32 0.00 0.60 0.45 0.07 0.9986 0.80 0.26 0.00 0.35 0.05 0.05 0.9132 >500

Mill/Aber/Germ (WA) 0.40 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.49 0.10 0.9258 0.29 0.17 0.00 0.47 0.35 0.07 0.8112 150

Scappoose (OR) 0.80 0.32 0.00 0.60 0.45 0.07 0.9722 0.78 0.26 0.00 0.35 0.05 0.05 0.9045 240

Cascade Fall

Lower Cowlitz (WA) 0.70 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.50 0.10 0.9636 0.64 0.21 0.00 0.60 0.46 0.09 0.9441 50

 72 Impact figures represent a percentage reduction in abundance and productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat category. 

Methods used to estimate impacts differ for Oregon and Washington populations. For example, baseline impacts reflect conditions circa 1999 for Washington 

populations and through 2004 for Oregon populations. Given the methodological differences, impact figures are not necessarily directly comparable. See 

Sections 5.5 and 5.6 for more on methodologies. 

73 Reduction in tributary habitat production potential relative to historical conditions. Oregon and Washington used different methods to estimate historical 

abundance. Oregon’s approach, which incorporates safety margins and includes causes of mortality that are not captured in the other five threat categories, tends 

to indicate a higher potential impact from tributary habitat loss and degradation than does Washington’s. 

74 Reduction in juvenile survival in the Columbia River estuary as a result of habitat changes (relative to historical conditions); excludes predation.

75 Reflects passage mortality, habitat loss caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas for Washington populations; for Oregon 

populations, dam impacts reflect direct passage mortality only.

76 Includes direct and indirect mortality.

77 Reflects only the negative impacts of hatchery-origin fish, such as high pHOS and low PNI (proportion of natural influence), not the benefits of conservation 

hatchery programs.

78 Includes the aggregate predation rate in the Columbia River mainstem and estuary by northern pikeminnow, marine mammals, Caspian terns, and cormorants.

79 Cumulative values (both baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive and are equal to (1-[(1-Mthab)(1-Mest)(1-Mdams)(1-Mharv)(1-Mhatch)(1-Mpred)]). 

Minor differences from numbers in ODFW 2010 and LCFRB 2010a are due to rounding.

80 Survival improvements indicate the percentage improvement (rounded to the nearest 10) in population survival needed to achieve target impacts and are 

derived from the cumulative values (baseline and target), using the following equation: [(1-CumulativeTarget)-(1-CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. 

These cumulative impact numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling approach that Oregon recovery planners used to 

derive target impacts. For populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 percent, this table does not report the exact value, for the reasons 

explained in Section 7.5.2. For the Oregon population designated as stabilizing (Youngs Bay), a survival improvement is shown because of improvements that are 

expected in tributary habitat, estuary conditions, and predation.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-63

Table 7-8

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Fall Chinook 

Salmon Populations

Impacts at Baseline72 Impacts at Target

Population T. Hab73 Est74 Dams75 Harv76 Hat77 Pred78 Cumulative79 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

% Survival 

Improvement 

Needed80

Upper Cowlitz (WA) 0.80 0.23 1.00 0.65 0.50 0.10 1.0000 0.80 0.23 1.00 0.65 0.50 0.10 1.000 081

Toutle (WA) 0.60 0.23 0.05 0.65 0.50 0.10 0.9539 0.41 0.16 0.03 0.44 0.34 0.07 0.8348 260

Coweeman (WA) 0.50 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.23 0.10 0.9066 0.41 0.19 0.00 0.53 0.19 0.08 0.8326 80

Kalama (WA) 0.40 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.50 0.10 0.9272 0.31 0.18 0.00 0.51 0.39 0.08 0.8444 110

Lewis (WA) 0.40 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.50 0.11 0.9280 0.23 0.13 0.00 0.38 0.29 0.06 0.7228 290

Salmon Creek (WA) 0.90 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.50 0.11 0.9881 0.90 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.50 0.11 0.9880 0

Clackamas (OR) 0.82 0.32 0.00 0.60 0.45 0.07 0.9750 0.82 0.26 0.00 0.35 0.15 0.06 0.9308 180

Sandy (OR) 0.83 0.32 0.03 0.60 0.45 0.07 0.9771 0.57 0.26 0.00 0.35 0.15 0.06 0.8347 >500

Washougal (WA) 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.65 0.50 0.11 0.9161 0.20 0.15 0.00 0.43 0.33 0.07 0.7585 190

Gorge Fall

L. Gorge — WA 

portion 0.70 0.23 0.30 0.65 0.50 0.11 0.9748 0.35 0.11 0.15 0.33 0.25 0.06 0.7677 >500

L. Gorge — OR portion 0.82 0.32 0.00 0.60 0.45 0.07 0.9750 0.59 0.26 0.00 0.35 0.30 0.06 0.8702 420

U. Gorge — WA 

portion 0.70 0.22 0.54 0.65 0.50 0.14 0.9838 0.35 0.11 0.27 0.33 0.25 0.07 0.8026 >500

U. Gorge — OR 

portion 0.80 0.32 0.13 0.65 0.45 0.09 0.9793 0.58 0.26 0.13 0.40 0.30 0.07 0.8944 410

White Salmon (WA)82 0.70 0.22 0.54 0.65 0.50 0.14 0.9838 0.35 0.11 0.27 0.33 0.25 0.07 0.8026 >500

Hood (OR)83 0.71 0.32 0.19 0.70 0.45 0.09 0.9760 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1000 >500

 81 The Upper Cowlitz population is a stabilizing population not targeted for improvements in any threat category. Because hydropower impacts are 100 percent 

for this population, the formula for percent survival improvement for these populations was modified to account for the 100 percent hydropower impacts (i.e., to 

avoid having to divide by zero). 

82 Baseline and target impacts for the White Salmon population are from LCFRB (2010a).

83 Oregon’s analysis indicates a low probability of meeting the delisting objective of high viability persistence probability for this population.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-64

7.5.3 Fall Chinook Salmon Recovery Strategy

7.5.3.1 Strategy Summary

The recovery strategy for the tule fall component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon ESU is designed to restore the Coast and Cascade tule strata to a high probability 

of persistence and to improve the persistence probability of all four Gorge-stratum 

populations. The strategy involves transitioning from decades of management that 

allowed habitat degradation and emphasized hatchery production of fish for harvest 

(without adequate regard to effects on natural production) to management that supports 

a naturally self-sustaining ESU. This transition will be accomplished by addressing all 

threat categories and sharing the burden of recovery across categories. The most crucial 

elements are as follows:

1. Protect and improve the Coweeman and Lewis populations, which are currently 

performing the best, by ensuring that habitat is protected and restored, that the 

proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS) is reduced, and that harvest 

rates allow for gains in productivity to translate into continued progress toward 

recovery.

2. Fill information gaps regarding the extent of natural production and the extent of 

hatchery-origin spawners.

3. Focus recovery efforts on populations that have the greatest prospects for 

improvement; determine whether efforts to reestablish populations are needed. 

4. Protect existing high-functioning habitat for all populations. 

5. Implement aggressive efforts to improve the quality and quantity of both 

tributary and estuarine habitat. 

6. Implement aggressive efforts to reduce the influence of hatchery fish on naturalorigin fish.

7. Adjust harvest as needed to ensure appropriate increases in natural-origin 

abundance.

8. Assess habitat quantity, quality, and distribution.

Transition strategies will be developed for each primary population that specify 

(1) timelines and strategies for reducing hatchery-origin spawners, (2) benchmarks for 

habitat improvement, (3) expected population response, and (4) harvest adjustments as 

needed to ensure appropriate increases in natural-origin abundance. These strategies 

will include adaptive management that provides a pathway for addressing critical 

uncertainties and that establishes benchmarks and adaptive actions if benchmarks are 

not met.

Transition strategies for non-primary populations will be developed to protect them 

from deterioration while moving them from high pHOS, with little or no natural 

production, through a period that addresses short-term demographic risks and reduces 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-65

hatchery fractions while improving habitat conditions. Monitoring and evaluation will 

be critical in validating and, as appropriate, updating current assumptions regarding 

what is currently limiting the most poorly performing populations (i.e., assumptions 

about pHOS rates, the degree of local adaptation, the causes of the poor performance, 

and how the poorly performing populations contribute to the overall genetic diversity of 

their stratum and the ESU).

Very large improvements are needed in the persistence probability of most fall Chinook 

salmon populations if this component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon

ESU is to achieve recovery (see Table 7-4 for the target persistence probability for each 

fall Chinook salmon population and Figure 7-7 for the gaps between baseline and target 

status). Recovery prospects for fall Chinook salmon populations in the Gorge are 

constrained by very low abundance, limited habitat availability, and inundation of 

historically productive habitat by Bonneville Reservoir (LCFRB 2010a). As indicated in 

the delisting criteria (see Section 3.2), the recovery scenario for fall Chinook salmon does 

not meet the criteria for a high probability of persistence as defined by the WLC TRT; in 

addition, whether the recovery scenario for Gorge fall Chinook salmon can even be 

achieved is highly uncertain because of questions about the historical role of the Gorge 

populations and constrained opportunities for habitat restoration. To compensate for 

these limited recovery prospects, additional populations in the Coast and Cascade strata 

are prioritized for high persistence probabilities.

The recovery strategy for tule fall Chinook salmon is a long-term, “all-H” approach in 

which plan implementers begin work on all of the elements described above 

immediately and implement actions associated with each of the six threat categories 

simultaneously.84 As part of a series of 5-year implementation schedules, management 

unit planners will work with NMFS staff to prioritize individual actions within each 

threat category, rather than across threat categories (see Chapter 11 for more on 

implementation). Recovery will require improvements in every threat category, even 

those improvements in Table 7-8 that are relatively small. Substantial actions are needed 

to improve tributary and estuarine habitat and reduce the effects of hatcheries, harvest, 

and hydropower; without significant improvements in all of these threat categories, the 

benefits of actions in any individual sector are unlikely to be fully realized and the 

expected threat reductions will not be achieved. Hatchery actions in particular are 

needed immediately to reduce impacts on natural-origin populations; however, the 

exact type and extent of actions will depend on the results of early monitoring to 

determine more clearly the actual pHOS rates among different populations. 

(Populations-specific pHOS rates are a critical uncertainty for fall Chinook salmon; see 

Section 7.5.3.8.) Harvest strategies also will be influenced by the results of monitoring. 

As natural production, abundance, and diversity eventually improve in populations that 

currently are performing poorly, harvest rates may need to be reevaluated to avoid 

impacts on these newly emerging weak stocks. 

Monitoring and evaluation are particularly important in the short term to address 

critical uncertainties about Lower Columbia River tule Chinook salmon. Specific needs 

include improving information on fall Chinook escapements in the Clatskanie and 

 84 Implementation of recovery actions to reduce threats in each category is already under way, although the 

scale of effort is less than that called for in this recovery plan. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-66

Scappoose, identifying those habitat restoration strategies that have the most potential to 

improve production, and verifying assumptions about habitat conditions in key reaches 

in the priority populations (e.g., are we right to target fine sediment levels in spawning 

reaches as restoration priorities for poorly performing populations such as the 

Clatskanie and Elochoman/Skamokawa?). 

The subsections below describe recovery strategies and near-term and long-term 

priorities for each threat category. For specific management actions in each threat 

category, linked to population and location, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 

2010a, ODFW 2010, NMFS 2013).

7.5.3.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy

An aggressive, strategic approach is needed to protect and restore tributary and 

Columbia River estuary habitat, both of which are severely limiting for Lower Columbia 

River tule fall Chinook salmon. Fall Chinook salmon will benefit from the regional 

tributary strategy described in Section 4.1.2. The regional strategy is directed toward 

protecting and restoring high-quality, well-functioning salmon and steelhead habitat 

through a combination of (1) site-specific management actions that will protect habitat 

and provide benefits relatively quickly, (2) watershed-based actions designed to protect 

or restore habitat-forming processes and provide benefits over the long term, and 

(3) landscape-scale programmatic actions that affect a class of activities (such as 

stormwater management or forest practices) over multiple watersheds. 

For fall Chinook salmon, the management unit plans set a high priority on reducing the 

impacts of sediment on survival to emergence and on improving juvenile rearing 

habitats, including reconnecting or restoring side channels and marsh habitats that are 

particularly critical to juvenile rearing of tule Chinook salmon. Priority site-specific 

actions will focus on protecting, restoring, or creating lowland floodplain function, 

riparian function, and stream habitat complexity. Priority restoration projects will 

include those to create or improve access to off-channel and side-channel habitat 

(alcoves, wetlands, floodplains, etc.) and restore riparian areas and instream habitat 

complexity; this includes improving recruitment of large wood to streams. 

Estuary/tributary confluence areas may also be a focus of site-specific actions, as habitat 

analysis indicates that substantial numbers of naturally produced juvenile Lower 

Columbia River fall Chinook salmon spend considerable time in such habitats (Cooney 

and Holzer 2010).

Near-term habitat actions should focus on implementing high-priority tributary actions 

that have already been identified, completing recovery plan implementation schedules, 

developing a prioritization and sequencing framework for habitat actions, and 

completing additional assessment work as part of developing the aforementioned 

transition strategy. This assessment effort should include identification of the amount 

and distribution of extant marsh-type habitats that are currently inaccessible for juvenile 

rearing in the tributaries used by Lower Columbia River tule Chinook salmon, along 

with identification of milestones or expected trends in improved habitat conditions in 

high-priority tributary and intertidal areas. The subsections below summarize 

additional, stratum-specific tributary habitat strategies for tule fall Chinook salmon. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-67

Ultimately, restoration of adequate habitat for tules will be challenging because of the 

high proportion of habitat in private ownership.

Coast Fall Chinook Salmon Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon habitat strategy in the 

Coast fall stratum, considerations include the following:

• Lowland areas are primarily in agricultural or rural residential use. These areas 

have been extensively modified by dikes, levees, bank stabilization, and tide 

gates; efforts to protect and restore habitat complexity will be priorities here. 

Actions will include breaching, lowering, or relocating dikes and levees where 

possible to improve access to off-channel habitats for juvenile fall Chinook 

salmon, particularly in the Clatskanie, Scappoose, Grays, and 

Elochoman/Skamokawa subbasins (ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010a).

• Upland areas are predominantly state and private timber land; these lands must 

be managed to protect and restore watershed processes (for example, through 

implementation of Washington’s habitat conservation plan for state-owned forest 

land). 

• Sediment source analyses and implementation of actions to reduce sediment will 

be needed in most Coast-stratum tributaries.

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

the Washington management unit plan calls for restoring passage at culverts and other 

artificial barriers in the Elochoman/Skamokawa subbasin (LCFRB 2010a). The Oregon 

plan identifies a need to investigate whether headwater springs in the Youngs Bay, Big 

Creek, Clatskanie, and Scappoose subbasins are drying up as a result of land 

management practices. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 7-8,

the scale of habitat improvements needed for the Coast fall Chinook stratum ranges 

from minimal in the Youngs Bay and Scappoose subbasins to a 20 to 30 percent increase 

in the productive capacity of tributary habitat in most subbasins. In the Grays subbasin, 

habitat productivity is targeted to increase by just over 60 percent. 

Cascade Fall Chinook Salmon Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon habitat strategy in the 

Cascade stratum, considerations include the following:

• In the lower reaches of most Cascade subbasins, including the Lower Cowlitz, 

Coweeman, North Fork Lewis, East Fork Lewis, Toutle, Salmon Creek, and 

Clackamas, floodplains have been drastically altered or disconnected as a result 

of channel modification to facilitate and protect development, agricultural land, 

and, in some cases, gravel mining. Restoration of these areas will need to be 

balanced with the need to protect existing infrastructure and control flood risk.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-68

• Upper portions of the East Fork Lewis, Washougal, Clackamas, and Sandy 

subbasins are primarily federal forest lands. Continued implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan will be crucial in protecting and restoring watershed 

processes in these areas. 

• State or private forest land predominates in the upper portions of the 

Coweeman, Toutle, Kalama, North Fork Lewis, and Salmon Creek subbasins. 

These lands must be managed to protect and restore watershed processes (for 

example, through implementation of Washington’s habitat conservation plan for 

state-owned forest land).

• The stratum includes the most heavily urbanized areas in the Columbia Basin. 

Managing the impacts of growth and development on watershed processes and 

habitat conditions will be key to the protection and improvement of habitat 

conditions for fall Chinook salmon in these areas. 

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

addressing passage barriers such as culverts will benefit fall Chinook salmon by 

restoring access to habitat in a number of locations, including the Lower Cowlitz, 

Kalama, and East Fork Lewis subbasins. (In some cases, additional assessment is needed 

to inventory and prioritize these blockages.) Addressing passage and sedimentation 

issues associated with the sediment retention structure on the North Fork Toutle River 

will be a key component for the Toutle population. Sediment issues in other watersheds 

will be addressed generally by restoring watershed processes and dealing with legacy 

road issues. In some cases (e.g., the Sandy), assessment to identify sediment sources is 

noted as a first step before additional actions can be taken. The Oregon management 

unit plan identifies a need to address flow issues in the Clackamas subbasin and 

incorporates a number of flow-related actions. In the Sandy subbasin, implementation of 

the city of Portland’s Bull Run Water Supply habitat conservation plan will contribute 

significantly to the habitat improvements needed to achieve the recovery target. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 7-8,

the scale of habitat improvements needed for Cascade fall Chinook stratum populations 

ranges from minimal (but with protection of well-functioning habitat) to just over 40 

percent. The two stabilizing populations—Salmon Creek and Upper Cowlitz—are not 

targeted for improvements in habitat productivity, in the first case because production 

potential is low and in the second case because spring Chinook salmon recovery efforts 

in the Upper Cowlitz have been prioritized over fall Chinook salmon. The Lower 

Cowlitz is targeted for an 8 percent improvement in habitat productivity, and the Sandy, 

Toutle, Coweeman, Kalama, Washougal, and East Fork Lewis subbasins are targeted for 

habitat improvements on the order of 20 to 40 percent. Oregon estimated that, for the 

Clackamas population, existing habitat is adequate to achieve the targeted medium 

persistence probability, assuming that all other targeted threat reductions for that 

population are achieved. However, the Oregon plan notes that, because of multiple 

uncertainties, efforts should still be made to protect and restore habitat in the Clackamas 

subbasin.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-69

Gorge Fall Chinook Salmon Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon habitat strategy in the 

Gorge stratum, considerations include the following: 

• In the lower reaches of most Gorge tributary streams, floodplains have been 

drastically altered or disconnected as a result of channel modification to facilitate 

and protect development and transportation infrastructure. For the Lower Gorge 

population, site-specific actions will include addressing or mitigating the impacts 

of the highway and railroad transportation corridors that run parallel to the 

Columbia River shoreline, traversing all creek drainages in ways that restrict 

access and disconnect upland and lowland habitat processes.

• Gorge populations occur in watersheds that are largely federal, state, and private 

forest land. These lands must be managed to protect and restore watershed 

processes.

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

the Oregon management unit plan identifies a number of actions to restore natural flows 

that have been disrupted by irrigation withdrawals in the Hood subbasin. Restoring 

floodplain connectivity and function is called for at locations below Bonneville Dam; 

however, there is little opportunity to implement floodplain measures above Bonneville 

Dam because much mainstem floodplain habitat was inundated by Bonneville 

Reservoir. For this reason, habitat efforts above the dam will rely on other strategies. 

In the White Salmon subbasin, the breaching of Condit Dam in October 2011 (full 

removal was completed in September 2012) created near-term negative effects in the 

habitat below the dam and the habitat within the footprint of the former reservoir 

because of sediment release and scouring. Long-term effects are expected to be positive 

because of restored natural flow and sediment transport regimes. The White Salmon 

management unit plan outlines four broad tributary habitat strategies: (1) gain 

information to identify and prioritize habitat actions, (2) when the dam is removed, 

restore mainstem habitat, (3) protect and conserve natural ecological processes, and (4) 

improve habitat in upriver reaches (NMFS 2013). In the near-term, evaluating the effects 

of the dam breaching and removal on habitat and performing additional assessment of 

habitat limiting factors are high priorities. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 7-8,

reductions in baseline tributary habitat impacts needed to meet target statuses range 

from 50 percent for the Lower and Upper Gorge and the White Salmon subbasins to a 

complete elimination of anthropogenically enhanced tributary habitat-related mortality 

in the Hood subbasin. (The Oregon management unit plan acknowledges that this is 

unattainable.)

7.5.3.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy

Estuarine habitat improvements are critical for Lower Columbia River fall Chinook 

salmon, which are severely limited by a paucity of intertidal marshes and similar 

estuarine wetlands that tules rely on for spawning, refuge, and extended rearing. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-70

Improvements to estuary habitat may be especially important for Coast-stratum fall 

Chinook populations; outmigrant trapping and habitat analyses indicate that 

populations in the Coast ecozone historically relied on wetland areas at the confluences 

of the tributaries and the mainstem Columbia as juvenile rearing areas (Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center 2010). In addition, substantial numbers of naturally produced 

juvenile Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon spend significant time in 

estuary/tributary confluence habitats (Cooney and Holzer 2010).

Improving Columbia River estuary habitat as described in the regional estuary habitat 

strategy will benefit all Columbia Basin ESUs, including Lower Columbia River fall 

Chinook salmon. (For a summary of the regional estuarine habitat strategy, see Section

4.2.2.) The regional strategy reflects actions presented in the Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans to reduce estuarine habitat-related threats and is consistent with 

actions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead

(NMFS 2011a). For fall Chinook salmon, the assessment process described as part of the 

regional strategy should include assessment of the tidal portions of tributaries and their 

confluence with the mainstem Columbia. (Recent NMFS modeling for selected Lower 

Columbia River tule populations indicates that such confluence habitat may be 

especially important for Coast- and Cascade-stratum populations [Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center 2010].) Developing implementation priorities for estuarine habitat actions 

also should include establishment of milestones or expected trends in improved habitat 

conditions in high-priority intertidal areas. 

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) assumes that feasible estuarine habitat improvements and predation 

management measures could result in a maximum increase of 20 percent in the number 

of outmigrating juveniles leaving the Columbia River estuary. Oregon and Washington 

recovery planners set targets of reducing anthropogenically enhanced mortality in the 

estuary for fall Chinook salmon populations based on the estuary module and their own 

approaches to threat reductions (see ODFW 2010, Tables 6-13 and 6-21; LCFRB 2010a, 

Table 6-2).

Ultimately, restoring adequate habitat for tules in the Columbia River estuary will be 

challenging because of the high proportion of habitat in private ownership.

7.5.3.4 Hydropower Strategy

Because tule fall Chinook salmon are distributed low in tributary subbasins, 

reintroduction above tributary dam complexes is not critical to their recovery. However, 

the hydropower strategy includes actions to improve passage survival at tributary dams 

and reduce the effects of dam operation (e.g., flow management and water 

temperatures) on critical downstream habitats. 

The strategy also includes measures to improve passage survival at Bonneville Dam for 

the Upper Gorge, Hood, and White Salmon populations and implementation of

mainstem flow management operations designed to benefit spring migrants from the 

interior of the Columbia Basin; NMFS expects that these flow management operations

will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the plume for all Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. NMFS estimates that survival of 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-71

Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon passing Bonneville Dam was 95.1 percent 

for juveniles from 2002 to 2009 and 96.9 percent for adults from 2002 to 2007 (NMFS 

2008a). NMFS expects that implementation of actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion and its 2010 Supplement will improve juvenile fall Chinook salmon survival at 

Bonneville Dam by less than 1⁄2 percent, and that adult survival will be maintained at 

recent high levels (NMFS 2008a). Consequently, Oregon has not incorporated survival 

benefits from passage improvements at Bonneville into the hydropower threat reduction 

targets for Oregon populations above Bonneville.85 The Washington management unit 

plan assumes that actions identified in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement will aid adults and juveniles from all Lower Columbia River fall Chinook 

salmon populations originating above Bonneville Dam. For more on actions to improve 

mainstem dam passage, see the regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2. 

In its management unit plan, Oregon incorporated several actions addressing impacts of 

the Columbia River hydropower system that are not included in the FCRPS Biological 

Opinion and its 2010 Supplement but that Oregon maintains are needed to benefit 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations that spawn above Bonneville 

Dam. The state of Oregon’s position is that the FCRPS action agencies should conduct 

operations in addition to those incorporated in the FCRPS Biological Opinion to address 

the needs of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Oregon is a plaintiff in litigation against 

various federal agencies, including NMFS, challenging the adequacy of measures in the 

FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. NMFS does not agree with Oregon 

regarding the need for or likely efficacy of the additional actions Oregon proposed in 

that litigation, including the actions in the Oregon management unit plan that are not 

part of the FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. For more detail on these 

actions and NMFS’ view of them, see the regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2. 

The subsections below summarize stratum-level hydropower strategies for fall Chinook 

salmon.

Coast Fall Chinook Salmon Hydropower Strategies

There are no tributary dams in the Coast ecozone, so the hydropower strategy for the 

Coast stratum is to implement the FCRPS flow management operations for spring 

migrants from the interior of the Columbia Basin; these flow management operations 

will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the plume for all Lower 

Columbia River fall Chinook salmon populations. 

Cascade Fall Chinook Salmon Hydropower Strategies

The primary element of the hydropower strategy for Cascade fall Chinook salmon is to 

address downstream impacts of operation of hydropower facilities in the Cowlitz and 

Lewis subbasins. These changes will be implemented under the terms of FERC 

relicensing orders for Tacoma Power’s Cowlitz River Project in 2004 and for PacifiCorp 

and the Cowlitz PUD’s Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects in 2002. In addition, the 

removal of PGE’s Bull Run Hydroelectric Project (which consisted of Marmot and Little 

 85 Hydropower-related threat reduction targets for Oregon populations above Bonneville Dam are 

associated with removal of Powerdale Dam on the Hood River.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-72

Sandy dams) in the Sandy subasin in 2009 addressed downstream passage impacts for 

fry of the Sandy fall Chinook salmon population. 

Recovery efforts for Chinook salmon in the Upper Cowlitz subbasin are focused on 

spring Chinook salmon, 86 while fall Chinook salmon recovery efforts are focused on the 

Lower Cowlitz population (targeted for medium-plus persistence probability) rather 

than on the Upper Cowlitz population (targeted to be maintained at very low 

persistence probability). Flow regimes from Cowlitz River hydropower system 

operations affect spawning and rearing habitat for the Lower Cowlitz fall Chinook 

salmon population, so the recovery strategy includes actions to maintain a flow regime, 

including minimum flow requirements, to enhance fall Chinook salmon spawning and 

rearing habitats in the Lower Cowlitz (LCFRB 2010a). While passage for fall Chinook 

salmon through the Cowlitz subbasin dams is not a primary focus of the recovery 

strategy, fall Chinook salmon are (in 2010) passed above Mayfield Dam into the Tilton 

subbasin and above Cowlitz Falls Dam into the Upper Cowlitz subbasin. Although the 

primary habitat for fall Chinook salmon in the Upper Cowlitz has been inundated, 

efforts are being made to reestablish some fall Chinook salmon spawning in the 

Upper Cowlitz.

In the Lewis subbasin, tule fall Chinook salmon occur in both the lower North Fork

Lewis and the East Fork Lewis (where there are no hydropower dams), but the East Fork 

Lewis supports most of the production and, along with the lower North Fork, is the 

focus of recovery efforts.87 As in the Cowlitz, hydroregulation on the Lewis River has 

altered the natural flow regime below Merwin Dam, affecting the quantity and quality 

of fall Chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat. The Washington management 

unit plan includes a measure to operate the Lewis hydrosystem to provide appropriate 

flows for salmon spawning and rearing habitat. The operational plan for the Lewis River 

dams, in conjunction with fish management plans, should include flow regimes—

including minimum flow and ramping rate requirements—that enhance the lower river 

habitat for fall Chinook salmon (LCFRB 2010a). Passage at the Lewis River dams is not 

part of the recovery strategy for Lewis River fall Chinook salmon.

Gorge Fall Chinook Salmon Hydropower Strategies

Tributary hydropower impacts for the White Salmon and Hood populations have been

addressed by removing Condit and Powerdale dams, respectively. Condit Dam, 

operated on the White Salmon River by PacifiCorp, was breached in October 2011 and 

completely removed in September 2012, under the terms of a 1999 decommissioning 

agreement and a 2006 Biological Opinion. Removal reopens access to four miles of 

historical fall Chinook salmon habitat (55 percent of historical spawning habitat is above 

the dam) (NMFS 2013). Natural escapement and production will be monitored for 4 to 5 

years; if adequate recolonization has not occurred by that time, appropriate hatchery 

adults and/or juveniles may be released into the White Salmon River. Powerdale Dam, 

on the Hood River and also operated by PacifiCorp, was removed in 2010 under the 

 86 Barrier Dam and Mayfield Dam in the Cowlitz Basin prevent all volitional passage of anadromous fish 

above RM 49.5.

87 In the North Fork Lewis Basin, three dams (Merwin, Yale, and Swift), beginning with Merwin Dam at 

RM 20, block passage to the upper North Fork Lewis.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-73

terms of a settlement agreement reached in 2003. Benefits to fall Chinook salmon in the 

Hood River will include improved upstream and downstream migration; removal of the 

dam is expected to reduce hydropower-related impacts for the Hood fall Chinook 

salmon population from 18.7 percent to 13 percent (ODFW 2010). Tributary dams do not 

affect the Lower Gorge or Upper Gorge populations. 

Actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement will also provide 

slight improvements in juvenile survival for the three Gorge fall Chinook salmon 

populations that spawn above Bonneville Dam (see the regional hydropower strategy in 

Section 4.3.2).

7.5.3.5 Harvest Strategy

Consistent with the regional harvest strategy (see Section 4.5.2), the harvest strategy for 

Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon focuses on refining harvest management to 

further reduce impacts to naturally produced fish while maintaining harvest 

opportunities that target hatchery-produced fish. Harvest on Lower Columbia River tule 

Chinook salmon has been reduced from average highs of 69 percent during the years 

1983 to 1993 to an average of 48 percent from 1999 to 2006, 38 percent in 2009 and 2010, 

and 37 percent in 2011 (NMFS 2008c). These changes have contributed to the harvest 

reductions called for in the Oregon and Washington management unit plans, both of 

which envision further reductions through a strategy of implementing mark-selective 

fisheries when feasible as a tool to sustain important fisheries, implementing abundancebased management when feasible, and applying weak-stock management principles.88

In terms of needed additional reductions, the Oregon management unit plan did not 

recommend specific harvest rates; instead, in its analyses it used 35 percent as a 

modeled, long-term average harvest rate and assumed that harvest actions such as 

abundance-based, weak-stock management and mark-selective commercial fisheries 

would be implemented. The Washington management unit plan recommends a phased 

harvest strategy involving lower near-term rates to reduce population risks until habitat 

improvements are achieved. Modeling in the Washington management unit plan shows 

a scenario in which harvest rates would be managed for benchmarks of 38 to 49 percent 

for the period between 1999 (the time of listing) and the year 2010, and rates of 33 to 

38 percent from 2011 to 2022. (The benchmark range is a target to be met within the 

designated period and will be used to assess progress toward recovery. With respect to 

tule Chinook salmon, the 1999-2010 benchmark range of 38 to 49 percent was met by 

rates of 38 to 49 percent over most of the period.) The modeling also projects that harvest 

rates eventually would increase as the benefits of other recovery actions are realized and 

natural production improves. These modeling results are planning targets and not 

predictions of future harvest rates; managers will establish future harvest rates based on 

observed indicators in Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon populations. 

NMFS’ recent modeling (Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2010), which addressed all 

primary tule populations except the Toutle, indicates that, in the Cascade stratum, the 

Lewis, Washougal, and Coweeman populations would benefit somewhat from 

 88 A critical question regarding weak stock management principles is how and when tule harvest will be 

based on the populations in the Coast stratum.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-74

additional harvest reductions but would be at low demographic risk at harvest rates of 

up to 38 percent. In the Coast stratum, the Clatskanie, Scappoose, and 

Elochoman/Skamokawa populations appear to be sustained by hatchery straying under 

current conditions and modeling indicates they would be at high risk in the absence of 

hatchery augmentation, even at very low harvest rates. The Mill/Abernathy/Germany 

population would be at intermediate risk at intermediate harvest levels. Because few 

population-specific landscape habitat maps are available, the NMFS analysis applied 

tributary habitat assumptions derived for the East Fork Lewis River to all populations. 

Under that assumption set, the Hood population appears to be self-sustaining at a 

harvest rate of around 20 percent; however, the Oregon management unit plan discusses 

the unique nature of the Hood River drainage, including the dynamic nature of 

sediment conditions caused by glacial inputs and other factors, and is more pessimistic 

about the status of that population (ODFW 2010). The uncertainty in all of these 

predictions is substantial. The Oregon and Washington management unit plans both 

highlight the need for improved estimates of current spawning levels and habitat 

conditions for Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon populations. The Oregon 

management unit plan identifies evaluating and potentially updating available data 

series for the Clatskanie, Scappoose, and Hood River fall Chinook salmon populations 

as high-priority technical tasks. Incorporating drainage-specific tributary habitat 

information may substantially alter model projections.

NMFS will ensure that best available science continues to be used to determine harvest 

rates that, when combined with other threat reduction strategies, are likely to achieve 

positive growth rates and move populations to their target status over the long term.

Near-term actions will evaluate and describe options for employing mark-selective 

fishing strategies in order to sustain fisheries while reducing fishery impacts on 

naturally produced Lower Columbia River tule Chinook salmon populations. Near-term 

actions also will include investigation of one or more options for predicting the 

abundance of natural-origin Lower Columbia River tule Chinook salmon (including the 

use of prior year returns) and incorporating abundance-driven management principles 

into Lower Columbia River tule harvest management. 

The current harvest strategy is based on the assumption (supported by the results of 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2010 modeling) that the productivity of the poorly 

performing populations in the Coast stratum is so low that their extinction risk would 

remain high regardless of harvest rates. The Hood tule population presents an 

additional challenge for several reasons. First, there is a relatively high degree of 

uncertainty associated with the specific assumptions regarding current tributary habitat 

conditions incorporated into NMFS’ modeling for the Hood population. In addition, the 

population’s baseline persistence probability in these model runs is very low, the 

population is targeted for high persistence probability, and—because of harvest impacts 

in Zone 6 fisheries above Bonneville Dam—the Hood population is subject to 

exploitation rates higher than those for the Coast and Cascade strata. 89 In the future, as 

productivity begins to improve in populations that currently are performing poorly, 

NMFS, co-managers, and the management unit leads will evaluate whether harvest 

needs to be adjusted. Additional information will be needed to understand how harvest

 89 Harvest management provisions in Zone 6 have been established through the year 2017 under the US v. 

Oregon process. Harvest in Zone 6 is limited primarily by constraints on upriver fall Chinook and steelhead.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-75

and other threats are affecting the ability of tule populations to achieve their recovery 

targets and appropriate strategies will need to be developed. 

In ESA evaluations of hatchery and harvest actions, NMFS expects to analyze the 

combinations of effects of multiple actions when appropriate. For example, where 

hatchery production clearly is intended to support harvest, the synergistic effects of 

artificial production and harvest will need to be analyzed at the juvenile and adult life 

stages. This should include ecological interactions as well as genetic and other 

considerations. 

Coast Fall Chinook Salmon Harvest Strategies

The ESU-level harvest strategy described above is expected to reduce harvest impacts on 

most populations in this stratum. As part of the strategy to direct harvest impacts away 

from other Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon populations, terminal fisheries 

targeting hatchery fish in Youngs Bay and Big Creek will continue, and those 

populations will continue to be subject to higher harvest rates than other fall Chinook 

salmon populations. Still, implementation of the ESU-level harvest strategy is expected 

to reduce harvest impacts on the Youngs Bay and Big Creek populations from 75 and 

65 percent, respectively, to 70 and 60 percent (ODFW 2010).

Cascade Fall Chinook Salmon Harvest Strategies

The ESU-level harvest strategy described above is expected to reduce harvest impacts on 

all populations in this stratum. 

Gorge Fall Chinook Salmon Harvest Strategies

The ESU-level harvest strategy described above is expected to reduce harvest impacts on 

all populations in this stratum. 

7.5.3.6 Hatchery Strategy

The regional hatchery strategy described in Section 4.4.2 summarizes goals and 

approaches relevant to Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon. In general, pHOS 

will be reduced through a combination of removal of excess hatchery-origin fish at 

weirs,90 shifts in production levels or locations, changes in hatchery practices, and markselective harvest. Some programs will be shifted to formal integrated programs, in 

which genetic hatchery impacts are reduced through inclusion of natural-origin fish in 

the broodstock. Because pHOS and its impact on the productivity of naturally spawning 

fish are key uncertainties for fall Chinook salmon, the management unit recovery plans 

propose monitoring to determine with more certainty the actual pHOS, while 

simultaneously moving ahead with actions to reduce the influence of hatchery fish to 

levels appropriate to each population (i.e., populations with a higher target persistence 

probabilities will be targeted for lower levels of influence), using techniques tailored to 

 90 The ecological risks of weirs will also be considered. The Recovery Implementation Science Team (RIST) 

discussed potential benefits and ecological risks associated with use of weirs (Recovery Implementation 

Science Team 2009). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-76

the circumstances of each population.91 Transition schedules will recognize the 

differences between populations such as the Washougal, where strays are largely from a 

within-population tributary hatchery program, and the Lewis, where hatchery strays are 

also from an adjacent facility but presumably are present at much lower numbers than 

in some populations. Near-term priorities include conducting more detailed assessments 

of current spawning escapements and hatchery proportions in the Clatskanie and 

Scappoose populations, both of which are designated as primary. The historical-tocurrent spawner data series for these two populations are highly uncertain. Near-term 

priorities also include continuing the efforts already under way to shift production and 

install and operate weirs. In addition, NMFS believes that there is a need for studies of 

the potential effects hatchery introgression on productivity (such studies are rare for fall 

Chinook salmon). Long-term priorities include achieving the recovery targets for each 

population and reducing reliance on hatchery production for harvest or risk reduction 

as natural productivity improves.

Details of how the hatchery strategy will be implemented in each fall Chinook salmon 

stratum will be developed as part of the transition schedules, but the subsections below 

provide some information. 

Coast Fall Chinook Salmon Hatchery Strategies 

The preliminary intent of the Coast-stratum hatchery strategy includes maintaining the 

Youngs Bay and Big Creek subbasins as areas of hatchery production to support 

terminal fisheries targeting hatchery fish; consequently, pHOS in the Youngs Bay and 

Big Creek populations is expected to remain high, and the populations are targeted to be 

maintained at low persistence probabilities. Some fall Chinook salmon hatchery 

production will be shifted from Big Creek to Youngs Bay in an effort to reduce hatcheryorigin spawners in the Clatskanie and, to a lesser degree, Scappoose subbasins. Existing 

weirs in both Youngs Bay and Big Creek will be used to pass natural-origin fish into 

sanctuary areas. The Clatskanie and Scappoose subbasins will remain areas where no 

hatchery fish are released. If pHOS in the Clatskanie remains higher than 10 percent, a 

trap may be installed to sort hatchery fish within 15 years.92

The Grays/Chinook, Mill/Abernathy/Germany, and Elochoman/Skamokawa 

subbasins also are expected to be maintained as areas where no hatchery fall Chinook 

salmon are released. No hatchery fall Chinook salmon have been released in the Grays 

subbasin since 1998 and none from the Abernathy fall Chinook salmon program since 

1995. The Elochoman hatchery was closed in 2009. The proportion of hatchery-origin 

spawners in each subbasin needs to be reduced; hatchery strays in the Grays subbasin 

are believed to come primarily from the Rogue River bright fall Chinook stock used to 

produce fish for the Select Area fishery in Youngs Bay. As of late 2011, weirs were in use 

in the Grays, Washougal, Elochoman, Coweeman, and Toutle rivers to separate 

hatchery- from natural-origin fish.

 91 For example, ODFW has established a target of 10 percent or less hatchery-origin spawners in natural 

spawning areas for populations targeted for high probability of persistence. WDFW will establish similar 

targets in its Conservation and Sustainable Fisheries Plan. 

92 The Oregon management unit plan did not incorporate an explicit contingency plan for the Scappoose 

basin. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-77

Cascade Fall Chinook Salmon Hatchery Strategies 

Currently, no hatchery fish are released into the Coweeman, Lewis, or Salmon Creek 

subbasins in Washington or into the Clackamas or Sandy subbasins in Oregon, although 

fall Chinook salmon populations in these watersheds are affected by hatchery-origin 

spawners that stray from other areas within the Lower Columbia subdomain. These 

areas are expected to be maintained as areas with no hatchery releases, and recovery 

actions will focus on reducing the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS) to 

levels appropriate to each population depending on its target status. 

As of 2010, fall Chinook salmon were being released into the Upper Cowlitz subbasin as 

part of a reintroduction strategy, although they are not the focus of the recovery effort in 

that subbasin. In the Lower Cowlitz, Toutle, Kalama, and Washougal, hatchery 

programs currently produce and release fall Chinook salmon that are intended to 

support harvest, in part as mitigation for fall Chinook salmon production lost as a result 

of multiple factors in the Columbia Basin. In these programs hatchery recovery efforts 

will focus initially on developing integrated hatchery programs through actions such as 

separate management of hatchery and natural subpopulations, control of hatcheryorigin fish into natural spawning areas, incorporation of natural-origin fish into hatchery 

broodstock (LCFRB 2010a). Specific approaches to broodstock and targets for 

proportions of hatchery-origin spawners and natural-origin broodstock will be 

developed for each population depending on its target status. 

In the Sandy subbasin, stray rates already have been reduced significantly from baseline 

levels and currently are lower than the 30 percent identified for recovery (ODFW 2010). 

Further reductions in pHOS may be difficult.

Gorge Fall Chinook Salmon Hatchery Strategies

Hatchery strategies for Gorge fall Chinook salmon will consist largely of changes in 

fishery enhancement programs to reduce hatchery impacts on natural-origin spawners. 

Actions may include separate management of hatchery and natural subpopulations and

control of hatchery-origin fish into natural spawning areas. Specific targets for 

proportions of hatchery-origin spawners will be developed for each population 

depending on its target status. 

For the Lower Gorge population, ODFW may install a weir and trap to reduce pHOS by 

separating natural- from hatchery-origin adults at Eagle Creek and Tanner Creek in 

Oregon. There are no hatcheries operating in the Washington Lower Gorge tributaries.

For the Upper Gorge population, Oregon will consider placing a trap at Herman Creek 

to sort hatchery fish. For the Washington portion of the Upper Gorge population and the 

White Salmon population, fall Chinook salmon from four federal hatcheries will 

continue to be released to provide for fishery enhancement (LCFRB 2010a). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-78

7.5.3.7 Predation Strategy

The regional predation strategy (see Section 4.6.2) involves reducing predation by birds, 

fish, and marine mammals and will benefit all Lower Columbia River ESUs, including 

tule fall Chinook salmon. 

7.5.3.8 Critical Uncertainties

Each aspect of the fall Chinook salmon recovery strategy has a number of critical 

uncertainties. For all ESUs, there are uncertainties regarding how habitat actions will 

translate into changes in productivity and capacity (Roni et al. 2011). Prioritizing and 

identifying next steps in resolving uncertainties is a near-term priority. Critical 

uncertainties specific to Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon include the 

following:

• Current level of natural productivity, hatchery fractions, sources of hatchery 

strays, loss and gain of reproductive fitness, and ecological interactions between 

hatchery-origin fish and natural-origin fish

• Effects of hatchery-origin fish on natural productivity at the population level, 

and whether there are density-dependent and/or predation effects in the 

Columbia River estuary

• Response in natural productivity to reductions in pHOS, and the time frame of 

that response

• Effectiveness of integrated hatchery programs in restoring the productivity of 

natural populations; availability of sufficient numbers of naturally produced fish 

for incorporation in the hatchery broodstock; validity of assumptions concerning 

natural fitness of hatchery-origin fish produced using natural broodstock

• Historical role of the Gorge populations and appropriate persistence 

probabilities, and abundance and productivity targets, for these populations 

• Most effective recovery strategy for populations whose genetic diversity is low 

and that may not be locally adapted 

• Appropriate stock to use (especially in terms of run timing) if reintroduction is 

necessary

• Effect of the distribution of intertidal habitats on the life history strategies of fall 

Chinook salmon93

• Locations of priority habitats for restoration, especially with respect to the 

distribution of intertidal habitats

 93 Recent modeling by NMFS (Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2010) for selected LCR tule populations 

indicates that “confluence habitat” (i.e., the tidal portions of tributaries and their confluence with the 

mainstem Columbia) may be especially important for coastal and Cascade populations.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-79

These critical uncertainties represent preliminary priorities identified by Oregon and 

Washington recovery planners and NMFS Northwest Regional Office and Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center staff during a November 2010 workshop. They are preliminary 

priorities only (and are not in ranked order); as described in Chapter 10, additional 

discussion among recovery planners and NMFS staff will be needed to finalize future 

research priorities for Lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon. 

The management unit plans identify more comprehensive critical uncertainties and 

research, monitoring, and evaluation needs that, along with the list above, will provide 

the basis for these future discussions. The White Salmon and Washington management 

unit plans have discrete sections on critical uncertainties for all of the ESUs in general 

(see Section 8.3 of NMFS 2013, pp. 8-4 through 8-6, and Section 9.6 of LCFRB 2010a, pp. 

9-68 through 9-73), while the Oregon management unit plan embeds relevant critical 

uncertainties within subsections on monitoring and evaluation needs related to the four 

VSP parameters and five ESA listing factors (see Sections 8.4 and 8.5, respectively, of 

ODFW 2010). In addition, in June 2010, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board completed 

the Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program for Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead

as a companion to its recovery plan (LCFRB 2010b). This document also describes critical 

uncertainties. The list above also does not include critical uncertainties that apply to 

multiple ESUs; these will be discussed and considered as decisions are made in 

implementation. In addition, the critical uncertainties above are of a technical nature; 

there are also many critical uncertainties related to social, political, and economic issues. 

Critical uncertainties are one element of research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) and 

adaptive management, which will be key components of the fall Chinook salmon

recovery strategy (see Chapter 10 for more discussion of RME and adaptive 

management for this recovery plan).

Monitoring and evaluation are particularly important in the short term to address 

critical uncertainties about Lower Columbia River tule Chinook salmon, identify those 

habitat restoration strategies that have the most potential to improve production, and 

verify assumptions about habitat conditions in key reaches in the priority populations 

(e.g., are we right to target fine sediment levels in spawning reaches as restoration 

priorities for poorly performing populations such as the Clatskanie and 

Elochoman/Skamokawa?). 

7.6 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Analysis: Limiting Factors, 

Threat Reductions, and Recovery Strategies

7.6.1 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Limiting Factors

Table 7-9 and the text that follows summarize baseline limiting factors and threats for 

Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook salmon strata based on population-specific 

limiting factors and threats identified in the management unit plans. In cases where 

conditions have changed significantly since the management unit plans’ analyses of 

limiting factors and threats (e.g., if harvest rates have dropped or a dam is no longer 

present), this is noted in the text. Unless noted otherwise, NMFS agrees that the 

management unit plans’ identification of limiting factors provide a credible hypothesis 

for understanding population performance and identifying management actions.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-80

Because the individual management unit plans used somewhat different terms in 

identifying limiting factors, NMFS has translated those terms into standardized and 

more general terminology taken from a NMFS “data dictionary” of possible ecological 

concerns that could affect salmon and steelhead (Hamm 2012; see Section 5.4 and 

Appendix H). In addition, in Table 7-9 NMFS has rolled up the population-specific 

limiting factors to the stratum level—a process that also has resulted in some loss of 

specificity. 

In addition, each management unit plan used a different approach for identifying 

limiting factors and threats (see Section 5.3). One difference relevant to the crosswalk is 

that while the Oregon management unit plan identified primary and secondary limiting 

factors for each population in each threat category,94 the Washington management unit 

plan categorized limiting factors in this way only for habitat-related limiting factors, and 

the estuary module did not. For the crosswalk and this table, NMFS assigned primary 

and secondary status to non-habitat limiting factors for Washington populations (based 

on the Washington management unit plan’s quantification of threat impacts and the

professional judgment of Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s staff and consultants). 

It is likely that some apparent distinctions in results between Washington and Oregon 

populations are artifacts of differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies and 

not an actual difference in conditions or their effects on salmon and steelhead 

populations. In addition, there is not necessarily a bright line between primary and 

secondary limiting factor designations. Nevertheless, NMFS believes that the 

designations are useful, particularly for looking across ESUs and populations and 

identifying patterns (see Chapter 4).

The management unit plans provide more detail on limiting factors and threats affecting 

Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook salmon, including magnitude, spatial scale, and 

relative impact, (see LCFRB 2010a, Chapter 3 and various sections of Volume II, and

ODFW 2010, pp. 116-128). For a regional perspective on limiting factors and threats that 

affect multiple salmon and steelhead ESUs, see Chapter 4 of this recovery plan. For a 

description of the data dictionary, the approach NMFS used to correlate management 

unit terms for limiting factors with the standardized NMFS terminology at the 

population scale, and the approach for rolling up from the population to the stratum 

scale, see Section 5.4 and Appendix H.

Management unit recovery planners in Oregon and Washington recognized that six 

major categories of manageable threats—tributary habitat, estuary habitat, hydropower, 

harvest, hatcheries, and predation—were useful as an organizing construct for grouping 

limiting factors, quantifying impacts on population productivity, and determining how 

much different categories of threats would need to be reduced to close the gap between 

baseline and target population status. Planners in both Washington and Oregon 

quantified the impacts of each of these major threat categories on population status, 

along with a reduction in each impact that would be consistent with achieving 

population target status. The results of that analysis are presented in Section 7.6.2 and 

provide a related but slightly different perspective on limiting factors. The threat 

 94 In the Oregon management unit plan, primary limiting factors are those that have the greatest impact and 

secondary limiting factors have a lesser but still significant impact.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-81

reduction targets also allow actions to be scaled to achieve a specific impact reduction, 

and to be linked to monitoring and performance benchmarks.

Table 7-9

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Late-Fall Chinook Salmon: 

Stratum-Level Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s) VSP Parameters 

Affected Cascade Late Fall

Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Riparian Condition Past and/or current land use 

practices All Primary for Sandy juveniles, secondary for NF Lewis juveniles

Channel Structure 

and Form

Past and/or current land use 

practices/ transportation corridor All Primary for Sandy juveniles, secondary for NF Lewis juveniles

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Side Channel and 

Wetland Conditions

Past and/or current land use 

practices/ transportation corridor All Primary for Sandy juveniles, secondary for NF Lewis juveniles

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Floodplain 

Conditions

Past and/or current land use 

practices/ transportation corridor All Primary for Sandy juveniles, secondary for NF Lewis juveniles

Sediment Conditions Past and/or current land use 

practices/ transportation corridor All Secondary for juveniles in both populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that impair riparian 

function/decrease streamflow, 

dams

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in NF Lewis

Water Quantity 

(Flow)

Dams, land use, irrigation, 

municipal, and hatchery 

withdrawals

All Secondary for juveniles in both

populations

Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors95

Toxic Contaminants Agricultural chemicals, urban 

and industrial practices A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in both populations

Food96

(Shift from 

macrodetrital- to 

microdetrital-based 

food web)

Dam reservoirs All Secondary for juveniles in both 

populations

 95 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this table and Section 7.5.1.2 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook 

salmon populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine 

limiting factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly 

revised) through adaptive management.

96 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-82

Table 7-9

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Late-Fall Chinook Salmon: 

Stratum-Level Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s) VSP Parameters 

Affected Cascade Late Fall

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Estuary Condition 

Past and/or current land use 

practices/transportation corridor, 

mainstem dams

All Secondary for juveniles in both 

populations

Channel Structure 

and Form

Past and/or current land use 

practices/ transportation corridor All Secondary for juveniles in both populations

Sediment Conditions

Past and/or current land use 

practices/transportation corridor 

, dams

All Primary for juveniles in both 

populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that impair riparian 

function/decrease streamflow, 

dam reservoirs

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in both 

populations

Water Quantity 

(Flow) Columbia River mainstem dams All Primary for juveniles in both populations

Hydropower Limiting Factors

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Bonneville Dam All

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Tributary dams All Secondary for Sandy juveniles

Harvest Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Fisheries A,D Primary for adults in both 

populations

Hatchery Limiting Factors

Food97

Smolts from all Columbia Basin 

hatcheries competing for food 

and space in the estuary

All Secondary for juveniles in both 

populations 

Population Diversity Stray hatchery fish interbreeding 

with wild fish A,P,D Primary for Sandy adults

Predation Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Land use A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in both 

populations

Direct Mortality Dams A,P,D

7.6.1.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Degraded riparian conditions caused by land uses past and present are a primary 

limiting factor for the Sandy late-fall Chinook salmon population and a secondary factor 

for the North Fork Lewis population. So, too, are channel structure and form issues, in 

the form of reductions in habitat complexity, diversity, and connectivity; changes in 

channel structure and form have resulted from past and current land uses, including the 

 97 Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia Basin hatcheries 

may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and habitat space in the estuary. NMFS 

2011a and LCFRB (2010) identified competition for food and space among hatchery and natural-origin 

juveniles in the estuary as a critical uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed 

competition for food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define and describe the 

scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin 

salmon in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore ocean habitats.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-83

transportation corridor. Sediment conditions are a secondary limiting factor for both 

populations. The high density of forest and rural roads in the Lower Columbia 

subdomain contributes to an abundance of fine sediment in tributary streams used by 

late-fall Chinook salmon. The resulting excess fine sediment covers spawning gravel, 

limiting egg development and incubation. 

Water quality—specifically elevated water temperature—is a secondary limiting factor 

for juveniles from the North Fork Lewis population of late-fall Chinook salmon. Water 

quantity issues related to altered hydrology and flow timing have been identified as 

secondary limiting factors for both populations. Impaired side channel and wetland 

conditions along with degraded floodplain habitat also have significant negative 

impacts on Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook salmon, warranting mention as a 

primary limiting factor for the Sandy population and a secondary factor for the North 

Fork Lewis population. 

7.6.1.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors98

Estuary habitat conditions are important for juvenile late-fall Chinook salmon, which 

spend considerable time rearing in the estuary. Water quantity issues related to altered 

hydrology and flow timing are identified as a primary limiting factor for both late-fall 

populations, as is impaired sediment and sand routing; these limiting factors are 

associated with hydroregulation at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the 

Columbia Basin, and, in the case of sediment issues, land uses both past and present. 

Much of the land surrounding the Columbia River estuary is in agricultural or rural 

residential use and has been extensively modified via dikes, levees, bank stabilization, 

and tide gates. Altered hydrology and sediment routing influence habitat-forming 

processes, the quantity and accessibility of habitats such as side channels and wetlands, 

the dynamics of the Columbia River plume, and the estuarine food web. 

Channel structure issues, in the form of reduced habitat complexity and diversity, are 

identified as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles from both populations, as is lack of 

access to peripheral and transitional habitats such as side channels and wetlands. Again, 

simplification of channel structure is related to conversion of land to other uses—

agricultural, rural residential, and as a transportation corridor—while juveniles’ access 

to side channels and wetlands is impaired by these same land uses but also by flow 

alterations caused by mainstem dams. Other secondary limiting factors in the estuary 

that affect both late-fall bright populations are exposure to toxic contaminants (from 

urban, industrial, and agricultural sources) and elevated late summer and fall water 

 98 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this section and in Table 7-9 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook 

salmon populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine 

limiting factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly 

revised) through adaptive management. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-84

temperatures, which are related to (1) land use practices that impair riparian function or 

decrease streamflow, and (2) large hydropower reservoirs. Altered food web dynamics 

involving a transition from a macrodetrital-based food web to a microdetrital-based 

food web also are considered a secondary limiting factor for both populations.99 These 

changes in the estuarine food web are caused primarily by increased microdetrital 

inputs from hydropower reservoirs and the loss of wetland habitats through diking 

and filling. 

7.6.1.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors

Flow management operations at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the Columbia 

Basin (Grand Coulee, Dworshak, etc.) affect all juvenile Lower Columbia River late-fall 

Chinook salmon in the lower mainstem and estuary, and potentially in the plume—

primarily by altering flow volume and timing. These alterations impair sediment 

routing, influence habitat-forming processes, reduce access to peripheral habitat, and 

change the dynamics of the Columbia River plume and the estuarine food web (see 

Section 7.6.1.2).100 Moreover, the large reservoirs associated with mainstem dams 

contribute to elevated water temperatures downstream in late summer and fall. 

Tributary hydropower impacts in the form of impaired habitat access and passage were 

identified as a secondary limiting factor for Sandy late-fall Chinook salmon, with 

downstream fry passage being impaired by PGE’s Bull Run Hydroelectric Project

(consisting of Marmot and Little Sandy dams). This project was removed in 2009, so this 

limiting factor has been addressed. In the Lewis subbasin, the Lewis River hydroelectric 

project’s effects on flow, sediment transport, and large wood supply were identified as 

limiting factors. 

7.6.1.4 Harvest Limiting Factors

Harvest-related mortality is identified as a primary limiting factor for both populations. 

Harvest rates historically were around 54 percent but have dropped to approximately 36

percent since listing. The majority of the harvest affecting late-fall Chinook salmon takes 

place in ocean fisheries, although there is some harvest in non-treaty fisheries in the 

mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, and in the North Fork Lewis River. 

7.6.1.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors

Population-level effects resulting from stray hatchery fish interbreeding with naturalorigin fish are identified as a secondary limiting factor for the Sandy population, which 

has an average pHOS of 25 percent. The North Fork Lewis population is largely 

uninfluenced by hatchery effects. 

 99 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear.

100 It is likely that flow impacts of the hydropower system affect Lower Columbia River ESUs more through 

changes in habitat-forming processes (including impacts to the plume) and food web impacts than through 

changes in migratory travel time.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-85

Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia 

Basin hatcheries may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and 

habitat space in the estuary. NMFS (2011a) and LCFRB (2010a) identified competition for 

food and space among hatchery and natural-origin juveniles in the estuary as a critical 

uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed competition for 

food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of both populations. The 

NMFS Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better 

define and describe the scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions 

between hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon in freshwater, estuarine, and 

nearshore ocean habitats. 

7.6.1.6 Predation Limiting Factors

Direct mortality from predation is a secondary limiting factor for all Cascade Chinook 

salmon populations, including late-fall Chinook salmon. Anthropogenic changes to the 

structure of habitat have increased predator abundance and effectiveness and led to 

increased predation by Caspian terns, double-crested cormorants, and various other 

seabird species in the Columbia River mainstem, estuary, and plume.

7.6.2 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Baseline Threat Impacts and Threat Reduction 

Targets

Table 7-10 shows the estimated impact on each Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook 

salmon population resulting from potentially manageable threats, organized into six 

threat categories: tributary habitat degradation, estuary habitat degradation, 

hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation. Both baseline and target impacts are 

shown, with the targets representing mortality levels that would be consistent with 

long-term recovery goals. Impact values indicate the percentage reduction in abundance 

and productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat 

category. The value associated with any particular threat category can be interpreted as 

the percent reduction in abundance and productivity from historical conditions if that 

threat category were the only one affecting the population. Cumulative values (both 

baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive. The table also shows the 

percentage improvement in productivity and abundance (i.e., improvement in 

population survival) that is needed to achieve the target impacts and corresponding 

population status.101

As an example, the baseline status of the Sandy late-fall Chinook salmon population has 

been reduced by the combined effects of multiple threats. The cumulative reduction in 

status was estimated at 90.8 percent from the multiplicative impacts of multiple threats 

acting across the salmon life cycle. Thus, current status is just 9.2 percent of the historical 

potential with no human impact. Tributary and estuary habitat, harvest, and hatchery 

impacts each accounted for reductions in population productivity of 20 percent or more, 

 101 The percentage of survival improvement needed is the percentage change in net impacts, is derived from 

information in the Washington and Oregon management unit plans, and is calculated as follows: [(1-

CumulativeTarget)-(1-CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. These values generally correspond to 

population improvement targets identified for Washington populations in LCFRB (2010). Comparable 

numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling approach that Oregon 

recovery planners used to derive target impacts.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-86

with corresponding reductions in abundance, spatial structure, and diversity. The 

Oregon management unit plan identifies a recovery strategy involving significant 

reductions in the impact of several threats. For instance, the plan targets tributary 

habitat impacts to be reduced from the estimated baseline level of 23 percent to 17

percent (i.e., an approximately 8 percent improvement relative to baseline conditions). 

With the targeted reductions in individual impacts, the cumulative effect of all impacts 

would drop from 90.8 percent at baseline to 61.6 percent at the target status. This change 

would translate into a 310 percent improvement in survival relative to the baseline.

Although the population would still be experiencing abundance and productivity that 

are 74.7 percent lower than historical conditions, the extinction risk at this mortality 

level would be estimated sufficient to meet the targets for this plan.

Oregon and Washington recovery planners used somewhat different definitions or 

methods to quantify the estimated impacts of anthropogenic threats. Baseline impacts 

for the Washington population reflect conditions prevalent at the time of ESA listing 

(circa 1999), while the baseline impacts for the Oregon population reflect conditions 

through 2004. Dam impacts for the Washington population reflect passage mortality, 

habitat loss caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas; for 

the Oregon population, the estimate of impacts in the “Dams” column of the Table 7-10

reflects direct upstream and downstream passage mortality only, with other dam 

impacts accounted for in the habitat and predation threat categories. Hatchery impacts 

for the Washington population were limited to not more than 50 percent per population, 

in accordance with Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) assessments of the 

potential for genetic effects (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2009); for the Oregon 

population, recovery planners used hatchery impact rates equivalent to one-half the 

rates at which hatchery fish were found on natural spawning grounds, based on 

analyzed relationships and reflecting concern about genetic and ecological effects. 

Washington recovery planners derived estimates of impacts to tributary habitat using 

the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model. Oregon recovery planners 

estimated the mortality associated with estuary habitat degradation, hydropower, 

harvest, hatcheries, and predation and assigned all remaining mortality (relative to the 

difference between the current modeled abundance and estimated historical abundance) 

to tributary habitat. In general, the tributary habitat values in Table 7-10 have the highest 

degree of uncertainty relative to the other threat categories and, for Oregon populations, 

may include causes of mortality associated with the other threat categories but not 

directly captured in those mortality estimates. (See Section 5.5 for more on the

methodologies used to estimate baseline impacts.)

Estimates of threat impacts are useful in showing the relative magnitude of impacts on 

each population. Given the differences in methodologies, some values in Table 7-10 for 

the Oregon and Washington populations are not necessarily directly comparable.

Regardless of differences in specific threat impact definitions and methods, the net effect 

of changes from all threats is useful in understanding the magnitude of population 

improvement needed to achieve the target population status. 

The target impacts in Table 7-10 represent one of several possible combinations of threat 

reductions that could conceivably close the conservation gap and lead to a population 

achieving its target status. The particular threat reductions shown in Table 7-10 reflect 

policy decisions and the methodologies and assumptions used by the different recovery 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-87

planning teams. (For a description of how target impacts were developed, see Section 

5.6.) In estimating impacts, management unit recovery planners evaluated each threat 

category independently (i.e., values in the table reflect the mortality of Chinook salmon 

exposed to that particular category of threats, whether or not they are exposed to threats 

in other categories). The estimates of baseline threat impacts have high levels of 

uncertainty and in many cases should be considered working hypotheses that are 

testable as part of recovery plan implementation. Despite this uncertainty, it is the expert 

judgment of NMFS and management unit scientists that, based on the best available 

information at this time, the estimates of baseline threat impacts provide a reasonable 

estimate of the relative magnitude of different sources of anthropogenic mortality and 

serve as an adequate basis for designing initial recovery actions.102 As more and better 

information is collected, it will be applied to recovery efforts in an adaptive 

management framework.

Both the North Fork Lewis and Sandy populations are currently considered viable; 

however, the recovery scenario calls for the persistence probability of the Sandy 

population to be raised from high to very high. This will be accomplished primarily 

through reductions in harvest and hatchery impacts. As with spring and fall Chinook 

salmon, recent actions have substantially reduced harvest impacts on late-fall Chinook 

salmon over baseline conditions, but additional reductions in harvest impacts are called 

for to achieve the target status for the Sandy population. More modest reductions in the 

tributary and estuarine habitat, hydropower, and predation threat categories are 

expected to support the gains achieved through reductions in harvest and hatchery 

impacts.

 102 As implementation proceeds, research, monitoring, and evaluation and adaptive management will be key 

in helping to refine scientific understanding of the impact of threats on population persistence and of the 

extent to which management actions are reducing threats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-88

Table 7-10

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Late-fall Chinook 

Salmon Populations 

Impacts at Baseline103 Impacts at Target % Survival 

ImprovePopulation T. Hab104 Est105 Dams106 Harv107 Hat108 Pred109 Cumulative110 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

ment 

Needed111

Cascade Late Fall

NF Lewis (WA) 0.10 0.23 0.16 0.50 0.05 0.11 0.7539 0.10 0.23 0.16 0.50 0.05 0.11 0.7539 0

Sandy (OR) 0.23 0.31 0.03 0.50 0.25 0.07 0.9074 0.17 0.26 0.00 0.30 0.05 0.06 0.6161 310

 103 Impact figures represent a percentage reduction in abundance and productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat category. 

Methods used to estimate impacts differ for Oregon and Washington populations. For example, baseline impacts reflect conditions circa 1999 for Washington 

populations and through 2004 for Oregon populations. Given the methodological differences, impact figures are not necessarily directly comparable. See Sections 

5.5 and 5.6 for more on methodologies.

104 Reduction in tributary habitat production potential relative to historical conditions. Oregon and Washington used different methods to estimate historical 

abundance. Oregon’s approach, which incorporates safety margins and includes causes of mortality that are not captured in the other five threat categories, tends 

to indicate a higher potential impact from tributary habitat loss and degradation than does Washington’s.

105 Reduction in juvenile survival in the Columbia River estuary as a result of habitat changes (relative to historical conditions); excludes predation.

106 Reflects passage mortality, habitat loss caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas for Washington populations; for Oregon 

populations, dam impacts reflect direct passage mortality only.

107 Includes direct and indirect mortality. 108 Reflects only the negative impacts of hatchery-origin fish, such as high pHOS and low PNI (proportion of natural influence), not the benefits of conservation 

hatchery programs.

109 Includes the aggregate predation rate in the Columbia River mainstem and estuary by northern pikeminnow, marine mammals, Caspian terns, and cormorants.

110 Cumulative values (both baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive and are equal to (1-[(1-Mthab)(1-Mest)(1-Mdams)(1-Mharv)(1-Mhatch)(1-Mpred)]). 

Minor differences from numbers in ODFW 2010 are due to rounding. 

111 Survival improvements indicate the percentage improvement (rounded to the nearest 10) in population survival needed to achieve target impacts and are 

derived from the cumulative values (baseline and target), using the following equation: [(1-CumulativeTarget)-(1-CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. 

These cumulative impact numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling approach that Oregon recovery planners used to 

derive target impacts.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-89

7.6.3 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Recovery Strategy

7.6.3.1 Strategy Summary

The recovery strategy for the late-fall component of the Lower Columbia River Chinook 

salmon ESU is designed to maintain the two healthy populations (North Fork Lewis and 

Sandy) and raise the persistence probability of the Sandy population from high to very 

high. Key elements of the strategy are as follows:

1. Implement the regional hatchery strategy. Minimize the impacts of hatchery 

releases of steelhead, coho, and spring Chinook salmon on late-fall Chinook 

salmon. Continue the current practice of not releasing hatchery fall Chinook

salmon into the North Fork Lewis River. 

2. Reduce harvest impacts on the Sandy late-fall population by using the same 

harvest strategies identified for tule fall Chinook salmon. Continue to manage 

fisheries to meet the spawning escapement goal for the Lewis River late-fall 

population and consider reassessing the goal as new data are acquired. 

3. Implement actions in the regional tributary and estuary habitat strategy designed 

to benefit tule fall Chinook salmon. Implement the stratum-level tributary habitat 

strategies designated for tule fall Chinook. 

Improving the persistence of the Sandy population will be accomplished primarily 

through reductions in harvest and hatchery impacts. As with spring and tule fall 

Chinook salmon, recent actions have substantially reduced harvest impacts on late-fall 

Chinook salmon over baseline conditions, but additional reductions in harvest impacts 

are called for to achieve the target status for the Sandy population.

7.6.3.2 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Tributary and Estuarine Habitat Strategy

In general, tributary and estuary habitat actions designed to benefit tule fall Chinook 

salmon will benefit the two late-fall Chinook salmon populations. Actions include those 

in the regional tributary and estuary habitat strategies (see Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2) and 

the stratum-level tributary habitat strategies described in Section 7.5.3.2.

7.6.3.3 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Hydropower Strategy

Tributary hydropower impacts, which had baseline effects on the Sandy late-fall 

population, have been addressed by the removal of PGE’s Marmot and Little Sandy 

dams (ODFW 2010). The hydropower strategy also includes implementation of

mainstem flow management operations designed to benefit spring migrants from the 

interior of the Columbia Basin; NMFS expects that these flow management operations 

will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the plume for all Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. (See the regional hydropower 

strategy in Section 4.3.2).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-90

7.6.3.4 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Harvest Strategy

Late-fall Chinook salmon are captured in many of the same ocean fisheries as their early 

fall run counterparts, although overall, inshore recreational and net harvest impacts are 

somewhat less for late-run fall Chinook salmon. Fisheries are managed to meet a 

spawning escapement goal for Lower Columbia River bright fall Chinook salmon that is 

based on the North Fork Lewis river population. In recent years, this escapement goal 

has been 5,700 natural adult late-fall Chinook salmon. Under the recovery strategy, 

ocean and freshwater fisheries would continue to employ escapement goal management 

for Lewis River late-fall Chinook salmon. The escapement goal may be reassessed as 

new data are acquired (LCFRB 2010a). Consistent with the regional harvest strategy (see 

Section 4.5.2), the Oregon management unit plan targets a reduction in harvest impacts 

for the Sandy late-fall Chinook salmon population from 50 percent to 30 percent and 

expects that this reduction would be achieved through the same harvest strategies 

identified for tule fall Chinook salmon. 

7.6.3.5 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Hatchery Strategy

The regional hatchery strategy described in Section 4.4.2 summarizes goals and 

approaches relevant to Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook salmon. Lewis River 

naturally spawning late-fall Chinook salmon are the healthiest Chinook salmon

population in the lower Columbia Basin and have been largely uninfluenced by 

hatchery production. Hatchery late-fall Chinook salmon are not released into the North 

Lewis River and releases should not be considered in the future. Hatchery releases of 

steelhead, coho, and spring Chinook salmon, either from the hatchery harvest program 

or from the upper Lewis natural reintroduction program, must include strategies to 

minimize impacts to rearing naturally produced fall and late-fall Chinook salmon. 

Hatchery strays have had a lesser, though still key, effect on the Sandy late-fall Chinook 

salmon population, with stray rates at one time averaging 24 percent but currently 

assumed to be less than 10 percent (lower than the hatchery threat reduction target for 

the Sandy late-fall population) (ODFW 2010).

7.6.3.6 Late-Fall Chinook Salmon Predation Strategy

The regional predation strategy (see Section 4.6.2) involves reducing predation by birds, 

fish, and marine mammals and will benefit all Lower Columbia River ESUs, including 

late-fall Chinook salmon. 

7.6.3.7 Critical Uncertainties

For all ESUs, there are uncertainties regarding how habitat actions will translate into 

changes in productivity and capacity (Roni et al. 2011). In addition, the following are 

critical uncertainties specific to the Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook salmon

recovery strategy:

• Evaluate assumptions about harvest: are impacts on the Sandy late fall Chinook 

salmon population lower than those on the tules because of run timing 

differences?
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-91

• Adequacy of the spatial distribution of the North Fork Lewis population to 

maintain the population at a high probability of persistence

These critical uncertainties represent preliminary priorities identified by Oregon and 

Washington recovery planners and NMFS Northwest Regional Office and Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center staff during a 2010 workshop. They are preliminary priorities 

only; as described in Chapter 10, additional discussion among recovery planners and 

NMFS staff will be needed to finalize future research and monitoring priorities for 

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon. 

The management unit plans identify more comprehensive critical uncertainties and 

research, monitoring, and evaluation needs that, along with the list above, will provide 

the basis for these future discussions. The Washington management unit plan has a 

discrete section on critical uncertainties for all of the ESUs in general (see Section 9.6 of 

LCFRB 2010a, pp. 9-68 through 9-73), while the Oregon management unit plan embeds 

relevant critical uncertainties within subsections on the four VSP parameters and five 

ESA listing factors (see Sections 8.4 and 8.5, respectively, of ODFW 2010). In addition, in 

June 2010, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board completed its Research, Monitoring, 

and Evaluation Program for Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead as a companion to its 

recovery plan (LCFRB 2010b). This document also describes critical uncertainties. The 

list above also does not include critical uncertainties that apply to multiple ESUs; these 

will be discussed and considered as decisions are made in implementation. In addition, 

the critical uncertainties above are of a technical nature; there are also many critical 

uncertainties related to social, political, and economic issues.

Critical uncertainties are one element of research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) and 

adaptive management, which Chapter 10 discusses in depth. RME and adaptive 

management will be key components of the Lower Columbia River late-fall Chinook 

salmon recovery strategy.

7.7 Delisting Criteria Conclusion for LCR Chinook Salmon

The requirement for determining that a species no longer requires the protection of the 

ESA is that the species is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future, based on evaluation of the listing factors 

specified in ESA section 4(a)(1). To remove the Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon

ESU from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (that is, to 

delist the ESU or DPS), NMFS must determine that the ESU, as evaluated under the ESA 

listing factors, is no longer likely to become endangered. 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate 

objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination in 

accordance with the provisions of the ESA that the species be removed from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The 

recovery criteria in this plan (both biological and threats criteria) meet this statutory 

requirement.

As described in Section 7.3, if the scenario in Table 7-4 were achieved, it would exceed 

the WLC TRT’s stratum-level viability criteria in the Coast and Cascade fall strata, the 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-92

Cascade spring stratum, and the Cascade late-fall stratum. However, the scenario for the 

Gorge fall and Gorge spring strata does not meet WLC TRT criteria because, within each 

stratum, the scenario targets only one population (the Hood) for high persistence 

probability, instead of two (see Table 7-11).112 Exceeding the WLC TRT criteria in the 

Cascade fall and spring Chinook strata was intentional on the part of local recovery 

planners to compensate for uncertainties about meeting the WLC TRT’s criteria in the 

Gorge fall and spring strata. In addition, multiple spring Chinook salmon populations 

are prioritized for aggressive recovery efforts to balance risks associated with the 

uncertainty of success in reintroducing spring Chinook salmon populations above 

tributary dams in the Cowlitz and Lewis systems. 

Table 7-11

LCR Chinook Salmon Recovery Scenario Scores Relative to WLC TRT Viability Criteria

Species Number of Primary Populations Stratum Average Criteria

Coast Cascade Gorge Total Coast Cascade Gorge

n ≥ high 4 4 1 9 Avg. score 2.36 2.35 2.25*

Fall

Chinook TRT criterion 

(n ≥ 2) 

met?

Yes Yes No

TRT criterion

(avg. ≥ 2.25) 

met?

Yes Yes *

n ≥ high -- 2 -- 2 Avg. score -- 4.00 --

Late-Fall

Chinook TRT criterion 

(n ≥ 2) 

met?

-- Yes --

TRT criterion

(avg. ≥ 2.25) 

met?

-- Yes --

Spring

Chinook n ≥ high -- 4 1 5 Avg. score -- 2.36 2.75*

TRT criterion

(n ≥ 2) 

met?

-- Yes No

TRT criterion

(avg. ≥ 2.25) 

met?

-- Yes *

*Stratum does not meet WLC TRT criterion for number of populations at high or higher probability of 

persistence.

Source: Based on LCFRB 2010a, Table 4-7 

Recovery planners’ uncertainty about meeting WLC TRT criteria in the Gorge fall and 

spring Chinook salmon strata is based on questions about available habitat and 

anthropogenic impacts that are unlikely to change in the near future (e.g., inundation of 

habitat by Bonneville Reservoir) and on questions regarding Gorge strata and 

population delineations and historical role (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). These questions 

include whether the Gorge populations were highly persistent historically, whether they 

functioned as independent populations within their stratum in the same way that the 

 112 As discussed in Section 2.5.4, the TRT’s criteria for high probability of stratum persistence require that 

two or more populations be viable and that the average score for all populations in the stratum be 2.25 or 

higher.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-93

Coast and Cascade populations did, and whether the Gorge stratum itself should be 

considered a separate stratum from the Cascade stratum.

As discussed in Section 3.2, NMFS has considered the WLC TRT’s viability criteria (from 

McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006 and summarized in Table 2-3), the additional 

recommendations in McElhany et al. (2007), the recovery scenarios and population-level 

abundance and productivity goals developed by the management unit planners, and the 

questions management unit planners raised regarding the historical role of the 

Gorge strata. 

NMFS has concluded that the WLC TRT’s criteria adequately describe the characteristics 

of an ESU that meet or exceed the requirement for determining that a species no longer 

needs the protection of the ESA. These criteria provide a framework within which to 

evaluate specific recovery scenarios. NMFS has evaluated the recovery scenario in the 

management unit plans for Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (summarized in 

Table 3-1 of this recovery plan) and the associated population-level abundance and 

productivity goals (see Section 7.3). 

Regarding the divergence of the scenario from the WLC TRT’s criteria, the TRT noted in 

its revised viability criteria (McElhany et al. 2006) the need for case-by-case evaluations 

of the continuum of ESU-level risk associated with some strata not meeting their criteria. 

In commenting on the recovery scenarios presented in the interim Washington 

management unit plan113—and by extension the recovery scenarios presented in Table 3-

1 of this plan—the WLC TRT stated that achieving the recovery scenarios would 

improve the status of the Gorge strata, even if the TRT’s criteria for those strata were not 

met. The TRT also noted that targeting the Cascade strata for very high persistence 

(above the minimum TRT criteria) would help lower ESU extinction risk. In addition, 

the TRT noted that the Gorge and Cascade strata are relatively similar compared to the 

Cascade and Coast strata. Also significant in the TRT’s view was that options for 

recovery of the Gorge stratum would be preserved, in case future conditions or analyses 

were to require high stratum persistence for ESU viability (McElhany et al. 2006, p. 9). 

Based on the information provided by the WLC TRT and the management unit recovery 

planners, NMFS concludes that the recovery scenarios in Table 3-1 and the associated 

population-level abundance and productivity goals in Section 7.3 represent one of 

multiple possible scenarios that would meet biological criteria for delisting. The 

similarities between the Gorge and Cascade strata, coupled with compensation in the 

Cascade stratum for not meeting TRT criteria in the Gorge stratum, would provide an 

ESU no longer likely to become endangered. NMFS endorses the recovery scenario and 

population-level goals found in the management unit plans for Lower Columbia River 

Chinook salmon (summarized in Table 3-1 and Section 7.3) as one of multiple possible 

scenarios consistent with delisting. 

NMFS also agrees with the management unit planners that the historical role of the 

Gorge populations and stratum merits further examination. The extent to which 

 113 In February 2006, NMFS approved the December 2004 version of the Washington management unit plan 

as an interim regional recovery plan for Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon and steelhead and 

Columbia River chum salmon. In May 2010, the LCFRB completed a revision of its 2004 plan (LCFRB 2010a), 

which is incorporated into this ESU-level recovery plan as Appendix B.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

7-94

compensation in the Cascade stratum is ultimately considered necessary to achieve an 

acceptably low risk at the ESU level will depend on how questions regarding the 

historical role of the Gorge populations are resolved.

NMFS therefore has developed the following delisting criteria for the Lower Columbia 

River Chinook salmon ESU (NMFS has amended the WLC TRT’s criteria to incorporate 

the concept that each stratum should have a probability of persistence consistent with its 

historical condition, thus allowing for resolution of questions regarding the Gorge 

strata):

1. All strata that historically existed have a high probability of persistence or have a 

probability of persistence consistent with their historical condition. High 

probability of stratum persistence is defined as: 

a. At least two populations in the stratum have at least a 95 percent probability 

of persistence over a 100-year time frame (i.e., two populations with a score 

of 3.0 or higher based on the TRT’s scoring system). 

b. Other populations in the stratum have persistence probabilities consistent 

with a high probability of stratum persistence (i.e., the average of all stratum 

population scores is 2.25 or higher, based on the TRT’s scoring system). (See 

Section 2.6 for a brief discussion of the TRT’s scoring system.) 

c. Populations targeted for a high probability of persistence are distributed in a 

way that minimizes risk from catastrophic events, maintains migratory 

connections among populations, and protects within-stratum diversity.

A probability of persistence consistent with historical condition refers to the 

concept that strata that historically were small or had complex population 

structures may not have met Criteria A through C, above, but could still be 

considered sufficiently viable if they provide a contribution to overall ESU 

viability similar to their historical contribution.

2. The threats criteria described in Section 3.2.2 have been met.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-1

8. Columbia River Chum Salmon

8.1 Chum Salmon Biological Background

8.1.1 Chum Salmon Life History and Habitat

Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) once were widely distributed 

throughout the lower Columbia Basin and spawned in the mainstem Columbia and the 

lower reaches of most lower Columbia River tributaries. Historically, spawning 

occurred as far upstream as the Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers, but it now is restricted 

largely to tributary and mainstem areas downstream of Bonneville Dam (LCFRB 2010a, 

NMFS 2013). Although chum salmon are strong swimmers, they rarely pass river 

blockages and waterfalls that pose no hindrance to other salmon or steelhead (ODFW 

2010); thus, they spawn in low-gradient, low-elevation reaches and side channels

(LCFRB 2010a). Chum salmon enter fresh water close to the time of spawning. They 

need clean gravel for spawning, and spawning sites typically are associated with areas 

of upwelling water. For example, in 1999 chum salmon were discovered spawning along 

the Washington shoreline near the I-205 Glen Jackson Bridge, where upwelling occurs. 

In addition, a significant proportion of chum salmon returning to Hamilton Creek 

spawn in a spring-fed channel, and portions of the Grays River and Hardy Creek 

populations spawn in the area of springs (LCFRB 2010a). 

Adult chum salmon returning to the Columbia River at the present time are virtually all

fall-run fish, entering fresh water from mid-October through November and spawning 

from early November to late December (see Figure 8-1) (LCFRB 2010a). There is also 

evidence that a summer-run chum salmon population returned historically to the 

Cowlitz River, and fish displaying this life history are occasionally observed there (Ford 

2011, Myers et al. 2006). 

Various physical and biotic factors affect the time it takes for eggs to incubate, hatch, 

and emerge as alevins from the gravel, but water temperature is believed to have the 

most influence on embryonic development; lower water temperatures can prolong the 

time required from fertilization to hatching by 1.5 to 4.5 months (NMFS 2013). Chum 

salmon fry emerge from March through May (LCFRB 2010a), typically at night (ODFW 

2010), and are believed to migrate promptly downstream to the estuary for rearing. 

Chum salmon fry are capable of adapting to seawater soon after emergence from gravel 

(LCFRB 2010a). Their small size at emigration is thought to make chum salmon

susceptible to predation mortality during at this life stage (LCFRB 2010a).

Given the minimal time chum salmon spend in their natal streams, the period of 

estuarine residency appears to be a critical phase in their life history and may play a 

major role in determining the size of returning adults (NMFS 2013). Chum and oceantype Chinook salmon usually spend more time in estuaries than do other anadromous 

salmonids (Dorcey et al. 1978 and Healey et al. 1982, as cited in NMFS 2013)—weeks or 

months, rather than days or weeks (NMFS 2011a). Shallow, protected habitats such as 

salt marshes, tidal creeks, and intertidal flats serve as significant rearing areas for 

juvenile chum salmon during estuarine residency (LCFRB 2010a). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-2

Juvenile chum salmon rear in the Columbia River estuary from February through June 

before beginning long-distance ocean migrations (LCFRB 2010a). Chum salmon remain 

in the North Pacific and Bering Sea for 2 to 6 years, with most adults returning to the 

Columbia River as 4-year-olds (ODFW 2010). All chum salmon die after spawning. 

Figure 8-1. Life Cycle of Columbia River Chum Salmon

(Source: LCFRB 2010a)

8.1.2 Historical Distribution and Population Structure of Columbia River 

Chum Salmon

The Columbia River chum salmon ESU historically consisted of 17 independent 

populations. Of these, 16 were fall-run populations and one was a summer-run 

population that returned to the Cowlitz River.1 Table 8-1 lists these populations and 

 1 Recent genetic studies indicate the historical existence of a summer-run chum population in the Cowlitz 

subbasin (Ford 2011). Based on earlier information about the possible existence of this population (see 

Myers et al. 2006), the Washington management unit plan recognized the need to protect and restore the full 

range of diversity in this ESU, and incorporated actions to recover summer-run chum in the Cowlitz 

subbasin to a medium probability of persistence. The WLC TRT defines a stratum as a group of populations 

sharing major life history characteristics (e.g., run timing) and ecological zones and representing a major 

diversity component within an ESU (McElhany et al. 2003). It remains unclear whether summer-run chum 

salmon in the Cowlitz River represent a separate stratum from Cascade fall-run chum or the early 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-3

indicates core populations (which historically were highly productive) and genetic 

legacy populations (which represent important historical genetic diversity). Figure 8-2

shows the geographical distribution of Columbia River chum salmon strata 

and populations.

The Columbia River chum salmon ESU includes fish from three artificial propagation 

programs in Washington: the Chinook River (Sea Resources Hatchery), Grays River, and 

Washougal River/Duncan Creek chum salmon hatchery programs (70 Federal Register

37176). These programs produce fry for efforts to supplement natural populations 

(LCFRB 2010a). In 2010, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated a new 

chum salmon hatchery program, which NMFS has not yet evaluated for inclusion in the 

ESU, at Big Creek Hatchery to develop chum salmon for reintroduction into lower 

Columbia River tributaries in Oregon (76 Federal Register 50448, Jones 2011). 

Table 8-1

Historical Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations

Stratum Historical Populations Core or Genetic Legacy Populations

Coast Youngs Bay (OR) Core

Grays/Chinook (WA) Core, genetic legacy

Big Creek (OR) Core

Elochoman/Skamakowa (WA) Core

Clatskanie (OR) 

Mill/Abernathy/Germany (WA) 

Scappoose (OR)

Cascade Cowlitz - fall (WA) Core

Cowlitz - summer (WA) Core

Kalama (WA)

Lewis (WA) Core

Salmon Creek (WA)

Clackamas (OR) Core

Sandy (OR)

Washougal (WA) 

Gorge Lower Gorge (WA & OR) Core, genetic legacy

Upper Gorge2 (WA & OR) 

Source: Myers et al. (2006), McElhany et al. (2003).

 

component of broadly distributed run timing. In its 2011 5-year review, the NMFS Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center concluded that available information suggests adding the summer-run chum population to 

the Cascade stratum of the Columbia River chum ESU (Ford 2011). This approach is consistent with the 

Washington management unit plan’s approach. Organizationally within this ESU-level recovery plan, 

Cowlitz summer chum are included in the Cascade chum stratum. 

2 Includes White Salmon population. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-4

8.2 Baseline Population Status of Columbia River 

Chum Salmon

Over the last century, Columbia River chum salmon returns have collapsed from 

hundreds of thousands to just a few thousand per year. Of the 17 populations that 

historically made up this ESU, 15 of them (six in Oregon and nine in Washington) are so 

depleted that either their baseline probability of persistence is very low or they are 

extirpated or nearly so (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010, Ford 2011).3 All three strata in the 

ESU fall significantly short of the WLC TRT criteria for viability.

Currently almost all natural production occurs in just two populations: the 

Grays/Chinook and the Lower Gorge (see Figure 8-2).The Grays/Chinook population 

has a moderate persistence probability, and the Lower Gorge population has a high 

probability of persistence (LCFRB 2010a). The Lower Gorge population meets 

abundance and productivity criteria for very high levels of viability, but the distribution 

of spawning habitat (i.e., spatial structure) for the population has been significantly 

reduced (LCFRB 2010a); spatial structure may need to be improved, at least in part, 

through better performance from the Oregon portion of the population. 

The very low persistence probabilities or possible extirpations of most chum salmon

populations are due to low abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. 

Habitat loss has severely reduced the distribution of suitable chum salmon habitats, 

with accompanying reductions in abundance and productivity. Limited distribution also 

increases risk to the ESU from local disturbances. Although hatchery production of 

chum salmon has been limited and hatchery effects on diversity are thought to have 

been relatively small,4 diversity has been greatly reduced at the ESU level because of 

presumed extirpations and the low abundance in the remaining populations (fewer than 

100 spawners per year for most populations) (LCFRB 2010a). For additional discussion 

of Columbia River chum salmon population status, see the management unit plans 

(LCFRB 2010a, pp. 6-33 through 6-35; ODFW 2010, pp. 57-58; and NMFS 2013, p. 4-3)

and Ford (2011).

 3 As described in Section 2.5 and 2.6, the WLC TRT recommended methods for evaluating the status of 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. The TRT’s approach is based on evaluating the 

population parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity and then integrating 

those assessments into an overall assessment of population persistence probability. As also described in 

Section 5.1, management unit recovery planners evaluated their respective populations’ baseline status in a 

manner generally consistent with the WLC TRT’s approach, with the baseline period being either circa 1999 

(for Washington populations) or 2006-2008 (for Oregon populations). Unless otherwise noted, NMFS and 

the management unit planners believe that those assessments accurately the status of the population at that 

time; the assessments are the basis for the summaries presented here and are consistent with the conclusions 

of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in its Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed 

under the Endangered Species Act (Ford 2011). New information on population status will continue to 

accumulate over time and will be taken into account as needed to reflect the best available science regarding 

a population’s status.

4 LCFRB 2010a reports that the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners for most Washington populations is 

3 percent or less. The exception is the Grays/Chinook population, which has a pHOS of 54 percent (LCFRB 

2010a) because a conservation hatchery program is being used to supplement natural production in that 

population. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-5

Figure 8-2. Baseline Status of Historical Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations 

8.3 Target Status and Conservation Gaps for Chum 

Salmon Populations

Table 8-2 shows the baseline and target status and historical and target abundance for 

Washington Columbia River chum salmon population, along with target status and 

abundance for Oregon populations.5 Local recovery planners coordinated with NMFS in 

making decisions about the target status for each population, taking into consideration 

opportunities for improvement in view of historical production, current habitat 

conditions and potential, and the desire to accommodate objectives such as maintaining 

harvest opportunities. Oregon did not identify abundance targets for chum salmon 

populations because quantitative data for use in calculating abundance targets and 

conservation gaps are not available. In Table 8-2, NMFS has included placeholder 

abundance targets for Oregon chum salmon populations based on the minimum 

 5 Because quantitative data on the status of Oregon chum populations are lacking, ODFW (2010) variously 

refers to these populations as extirpated, nearly extirpated, functionally extirpated, or extremely depressed. 

It is often difficult to distinguish between a population that is truly extirpated and one that is not entirely 

extirpated but is at significant short-term risk. This ESU-level plan refers to Oregon chum salmon 

populations as very high risk or extirpated or nearly so. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-6

abundance thresholds presented in McElhany et al. 2006 and 2007. The minimum 

abundance threshold (MAT) represents a lower bound estimate for average population 

size associated with a given persistence level. Minimum abundance thresholds take into 

account environmental variation, genetic issues, ecosystem functions, catastrophic risk, 

and other biological and ecological factors that affect the relationship between 

abundance and persistence probability and that may not be explicitly addressed in the 

viability curve analysis. McElhany et al. (2007) advised that, before a population is 

assigned to a particular risk category, the population should exceed the viability curve 

criterion, minimal abundance threshold, and any qualitative TRT criteria.6 (Note: the 

target statuses in Table 8-2 are the same as the persistence probabilities in the recovery 

scenario presented in Table 3-1 in Section 3.1.3.) 

Very large improvements are needed in the persistence probability of almost all chum 

salmon populations if the ESU is to achieve recovery (see Figure 8-3): nine of the eleven 

historical populations in Washington have very low baseline persistence probabilities, as 

do all six historical Oregon populations; it is possible that some populations are 

extirpated. Of the 17 historical populations, nine are targeted for high or better 

persistence probability. Some level of recovery effort will be needed for every 

population to arrest or reverse continuing long-tem declining trends; this is true for 

stabilizing populations, which are expected to remain at their baseline status, and for the 

ESU’s two best-performing populations—the Grays/Chinook and Lower Gorge—which 

have baseline persistence probabilities of medium and high, respectively. For these latter 

two populations, meeting recovery objectives will require significant improvement in 

spatial structure. The Grays/Chinook will need improvements in diversity as well. 

In the Coast stratum, five of seven populations are targeted for high or very high 

persistence probability. These include the Grays/Chinook and Elochoman/Skamakowa, 

which historically were among the most productive populations in the stratum. (The 

Grays/Chinook also is one of only two genetic legacy populations in the ESU.)

However, two other Coast stratum populations that also historically were highly

productive—Youngs Bay and Big Creek—are expected to remain at their baseline status 

of very low persistence probability to allow for incidental harvest of chum salmon that 

may occur in terminal fisheries that target hatchery coho and Chinook (ODFW 2010).

Of eight populations in the Cascade stratum, three—the Lewis, Sandy, and 

Washougal—are targeted for high or high-plus persistence probability; in the case of the 

Lewis, this is in part because it is a core population, meaning that historically it was one 

of the most productive in the stratum. Chum salmon in the Cowlitz and the Clackamas 

subbasins also are core populations.7 However, extensive diking in the Longview/Kelso 

area limits the recovery prospects for chum salmon in the Cowlitz subbasin, and the 

Oregon chum recovery strategy does not require both the Clackamas and Sandy 

 6 Minimum abundance thresholds are also specific to historical population size. Estimates of historical 

watershed size available to chum salmon populations are not available at this time, so the minimum 

abundance thresholds in Table 8-2 reflect the upper end of the range of the minimum abundance threshold 

for the small size category of chum salmon populations. 

7 The WLC TRT also indicated that the Cowlitz, including fall and summer-run fish, was likely an important 

component of the genetic legacy of the ESU (McElhany et al. 2003). As discussed above, preserving the 

summer component of the Columbia River chum ESU is an important recovery objective. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-7

populations to be viable.8 Thus the target status for the Cowlitz and Clackamas

populations is medium. The Salmon Creek population is expected to remain at its 

baseline persistence probability of very low because of severe habitat degradation in that 

subbasin and the historically small size of the population.

In the Gorge stratum, which contains two populations, the Lower Gorge population (a 

core and genetic legacy population) is targeted for high persistence probability, and the 

Upper Gorge population is targeted for medium probability of persistence. The 

management unit recovery planners did not consider it feasible to achieve a higher 

persistence probability for the latter population. Challenges include the small amount of 

historical and current habitat (and thus the limited options for restoration); 

anthropogenic impacts that are unlikely to change in the near future (e.g., inundation of 

historical spawning habitat by Bonneville Reservoir and roads that restrict access to 

habitat); high uncertainty in the data and analyses for small populations9; and the 

possibly inaccurate designation of population structure for this stratum. The Oregon 

management unit plan states that most of these issues are related to the population 

structure designation and suggests re-evaluating the Gorge stratum population 

structure for all species (ODFW 2010). As discussed in Section 3.2.1, NMFS agrees that 

such an evaluation is needed. 

If the scenario in Table 8-2 were achieved, it would slightly exceed the WLC TRT’s

stratum-level viability criteria in the Coast and Cascade strata. However, the scenario 

would not meet criteria in the Gorge stratum because only one Gorge population (the 

Lower Gorge) would be viable, instead of two. Exceeding the criteria in the Coast and 

Cascade strata was intentional on the part of local recovery planners to compensate for 

high levels of uncertainty about recovery prospects in the Gorge stratum (LCFRB 2010a).

(Delisting criteria for the Columbia River chum ESU are described in Section 3.2 and 

below in Section 8.7.)

Figure 8-3 displays the population-level conservation gaps for Columbia River chum

salmon graphically. The conservation gap reflects the magnitude of improvement 

needed to move a population from its baseline status to the target status. For additional 

discussion of the status targets and conservation gaps for Columbia River chum salmon

populations, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, pp. 6-33 through 6-37, 

ODFW 2010 pp. 148-150, and NMFS 2013 p. 3-12). 

 8 Oregon recovery planners set the desired status for chum salmon populations based on having half of the 

Oregon populations in a stratum reaching low extinction risk and the others improving significantly.

9 In the method used by the WLC TRT and management unit planners to establish abundance goals, target 

abundance is based to some extent on the gap between current and historical abundance. If the historical 

abundance of Gorge chum salmon populations has been significantly overestimated, then the abundance 

needed to achieve their target status may also be overestimated (ODFW 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-8

Table 8-2

Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations

Baseline Persistence 

Probability10 Abundance

Stratum Population Contribution A&P S D Net11 Target Persistence 

Probability

Historical Baseline12 Target13

Coast Youngs Bay (OR) C Stabilizing --14 -- -- VL VL -- -- <500

Grays/Chinook (WA) C, GL Primary VH M H M VH 10,000 1,600 1,600

Big Creek (OR) C Stabilizing -- -- -- VL VL -- -- <500

Elochoman/Skamakowa (WA) C Primary VL H L VL H 16,000 < 200 1,300

Clatskanie (OR) Primary -- -- -- VL H -- -- 1,000

Mill/Abernathy/Germany (WA) Primary VL H L VL H 7,000 < 100 1,300

Scappoose (OR) Primary -- -- -- VL H -- -- 1,000

Cascade Cowlitz - fall (WA) C Contributing VL H L VL M 195,000 < 300 900

Cowlitz - Summer (WA) C Contributing VL L L VL M -- -- 900

Kalama (WA) Contributing VL H L VL M 20,000 < 100 900

 10 A&P = Abundance and productivity, S = spatial structure, and D = genetic and life history diversity. Net = overall persistence probability of the population. VL 

= very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high, VH = very high.

11 All Oregon populations are considered to have a very low baseline persistence probability.

12 Baseline abundance was estimated as described in Section 5.1 and does not equal observed natural-origin spawner counts. The baseline is a modeled abundance 

that represents 100-year forward projections under conditions representative of a recent baseline period using a population viability analysis that is functionally 

equivalent to the risk analyses in McElhany et al. (2007). Washington numbers reflect fishery impacts prevalent in the period immediately prior to listing in 1999.

13 Oregon did not identify abundance targets for chum salmon populations because quantitative data for use in calculating abundance targets and conservation 

gaps are not available. In this table, NMFS has included placeholder abundance targets for Oregon chum salmon populations based on the minimum abundance 

thresholds presented in McElhany et al. 2006 and 2007. The minimum abundance threshold (MAT) represents a lower bound estimate for average population size 

associated with a given persistence level. Minimum abundance thresholds take into account environmental variation, genetic issues, ecosystem functions, 

catastrophic risk, and other biological and ecological factors that affect the relationship between abundance and persistence probability and that may not be 

explicitly addressed in the viability curve analysis. McElhany et al. (2007) advised that, before a population is assigned to a particular risk category, the population 

should exceed the viability curve criterion, minimal abundance threshold, and any qualitative TRT criteria. 

14 “—“ indicates that no data are available from which to make a quantitative assessment. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-9

Table 8-2

Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations

Baseline Persistence 

Probability10 Abundance

Stratum Population Contribution A&P S D Net11 Target Persistence 

Probability

Historical Baseline12 Target13

Lewis (WA) C Primary VL H L VL H 125,000 < 100 1,300

Salmon Creek (WA) Stabilizing VL L L VL VL -- < 100 --

Clackamas (OR) C Contributing -- -- -- VL M -- -- 500

Sandy (OR) Primary -- -- -- VL H -- -- 1,000

Washougal (WA) Primary VL H L VL H+ 18,000 < 100 1,300

Gorge Lower Gorge (WA & OR) C, GL Primary VH H VH H VH 6,000 2,000 2,000

Upper Gorge (WA & OR) Contributing VL L L VL M 11,000 < 50 900

C = Core populations, meaning those that historically were the most productive.

G = Genetic legacy populations, which best represent historical genetic diversity.

Source: LCFRB (2010a) and ODFW (2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-10

Figure 8-3. Conservation Gaps for Columbia River Chum Salmon Populations: Difference 

between Baseline and Target Status

Source: LCFRB 2010a.

8.4 Limiting Factors and Threats for Columbia River 

Chum Salmon

Columbia River chum salmon have been—and continue to be—affected by loss and 

degradation of spawning and rearing habitat, the impacts of mainstem hydropower 

dams on upstream access and downstream habitats, and the legacy effects of historical 

harvest; together, these factors have reduced the persistence probability of all 

populations. Under baseline conditions, constrained spatial structure at the ESU level 

(related to conversion, degradation, and inundation of habitat) contributes to very low 

abundance and low genetic diversity in most populations and increases risk to the ESU 

from local disturbances. 

Table 8-3 and the text that follows summarize baseline limiting factors and threats for 

Columbia River chum salmon strata based on population-specific limiting factors and 

threats identified in the management unit plans. In cases where conditions have 

changed significantly since the management unit plans’ analyses of limiting factors and 

threats (e.g., if harvest rates have dropped or a dam is no longer present), this is noted in 

the text. Unless otherwise noted, NMFS agrees that the management unit plans’ 

identification of limiting factors provide a credible hypothesis for understanding 

population performance and indentifying management actions. 

Because the individual management unit plans used somewhat different terms in 

identifying limiting factors, NMFS has translated those terms into standardized and 

more general terminology taken from a NMFS “data dictionary” of possible ecological 

concerns that could affect salmon and steelhead (Hamm 2012; see Section 5.4). In 

addition, in Table 8-3 NMFS has rolled up the population-specific limiting factors (see 

Appendix H) to the stratum level—a process that has resulted in some loss of specificity. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-11

In addition, each management unit plan used a different approach for identifying

limiting factors and threats (see Section 5.3). One difference relevant to the crosswalk is 

that while the Oregon management unit plan identified primary and secondary limiting 

factors for each population in each threat category,15 the Washington management unit 

plan categorized limiting factors in this way only for habitat-related limiting factors, and 

the estuary module did not use the primary and secondary terminology. For the

crosswalk and this table, NMFS assigned primary and secondary status to non-habitat 

limiting factors for Washington populations (based on the Washington management 

unit plan’s quantification of threat impacts and the professional judgment of Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s staff and consultants). It is likely that some apparent 

distinctions in results between Washington and Oregon populations are artifacts of 

differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies and not an actual difference in 

conditions or their effects on salmon and steelhead populations. In addition, there is not 

necessarily a bright line between primary and secondary limiting factor designations. 

Nevertheless, NMFS believes that the designations are useful, particularly for looking 

across ESUs and populations and identifying patterns (see Chapter 4). 

The management unit plans provide more detail on limiting factors and threats affecting 

each Columbia River chum salmon population, including magnitude, spatial scale, and 

relative impact (see LCFRB 2010a, Chapter 3 and various sections of Volume II; ODFW 

2010, pp. 141-146; and NMFS 2013, Chapter 5). For a regional perspective on limiting 

factors and threats that affect multiple salmon and steelhead ESUs, see Chapter 4 of this 

recovery plan. For a description of the data dictionary, the approach NMFS used to 

correlate management unit terms for limiting factors with the standardized NMFS 

terminology at the population scale, and the approach for rolling up from the 

population to the stratum scale, see Section 5.4 and Appendix H.

Management unit recovery planners in Oregon and Washington recognized that six 

major categories of manageable threats—tributary habitat, estuary habitat, hydropower, 

harvest, hatcheries, and predation—were useful as an organizing construct for grouping 

limiting factors, quantifying impacts on population productivity, and determining how 

much different categories of threats would need to be reduced to close the gap between 

baseline and target population status. Planners in both Washington and Oregon 

quantified the impacts of each of these major threat categories on population status, 

along with a reduction in each impact that would be consistent with achieving 

population target status. The results of that analysis are presented in Section 8.5 and 

provide a related but slightly different perspective on limiting factors. The threat 

reduction targets also allow actions to be scaled to achieve a specific impact reduction, 

and to be linked to monitoring and performance benchmarks.

 15 In the Oregon management unit plan, primary limiting factors are those that have the greatest impact and 

secondary limiting factors have a lesser but still significant impact.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-12

Table 8-3

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting Columbia River Chum Salmon: StratumLevel Summary 

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Coast Cascade Gorge

Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors16

Riparian Condition

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices 

All Primary for WA 

juveniles

Primary for WA 

juveniles

Primary for Lower 

and Upper Gorge 

adults and 

juveniles

Channel Structure 

and Form

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All Primary for WA 

juveniles

Primary for WA 

juveniles

Primary for Lower 

and Upper Gorge 

adults and 

juveniles

Peripheral and 

Transitional 

Habitats: Side 

Channel and 

Wetland Conditions

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All Primary for WA 

juveniles

Primary for WA 

juveniles

Primary for Lower 

and Upper Gorge 

adults and 

juveniles 

Peripheral and 

Transitional 

Habitats: Floodplain 

Conditions

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All Primary for WA 

juveniles

Primary for WA 

juveniles

Primary for Lower 

and Upper Gorge 

adults and 

juveniles

Sediment 

Conditions

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor 

All

Primary for WA 

juveniles;

secondary for 

OR juveniles

Primary for Cowlitz, 

Kalama, and 

Washougal 

juveniles;

secondary for OR 

juveniles 

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that 

impair riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dams

A,P,D

Primary for 

Kalama, Lewis, and 

Salmon Creek 

juveniles

Water Quantity 

(Flow)

Dams, land use, 

and water 

withdrawals for 

irrigation, 

municipal uses, 

and hatchery 

operations

All

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations

Primary for Cowlitz 

and Kalama 

juveniles;

secondary for 

juveniles in all 

other populations

Secondary for 

Lower and Upper 

Gorge juveniles

 16 Tributary habitat limiting factors in this table primarily reflect those identified in the Washington 

management unit plan. This is because chum salmon do not migrate far up tributaries and Oregon recovery 

planners categorized chum salmon limiting factors occurring in areas of tidal influence in the lower reaches 

of tributaries as estuarine. Thus, the relative paucity of tributary habitat limiting factors for Oregon chum 

salmon populations is an artifact of differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies between the two 

states and not an actual difference in the extent of tributary habitat limiting factors or their effects on chum 

salmon populations. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-13

Table 8-3

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting Columbia River Chum Salmon: StratumLevel Summary 

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Coast Cascade Gorge

Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors17

Toxic Contaminants

Agricultural 

chemicals, urban 

and industrial 

practices

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Food18

(Shift from 

macrodetrital- to 

microdetrital-based 

food web)

Dam reservoirs All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Peripheral and 

Transitional 

Habitats: Estuary 

Condition 

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices, 

transportation 

corridor, 

mainstem dams

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Channel Structure 

and Form

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Sediment 

Conditions

Past and/or 

current land use 

practices/transpor

tation corridor, 

dams

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that 

impair riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dam 

reservoirs

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quantity 

(Flow)

Columbia River 

mainstem dams All Primary for juveniles in all populations

 17 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this table and Section 8.4.2 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Columbia River chum salmon 

populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine limiting 

factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly revised) 

through adaptive management.

18 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-14

Table 8-3

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting Columbia River Chum Salmon: StratumLevel Summary 

Ecological 

Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Coast Cascade Gorge

Hydropower Limiting Factors

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Bonneville Dam All

Primary for Upper 

Gorge adults and 

juveniles

Habitat Quantity

(Inundation) Bonneville Dam All

Primary for Upper 

Gorge adults and 

juveniles

Hatchery Limiting Factors

Food

Smolts from all 

Columbia Basin 

hatcheries 

competing for 

food and space in 

the estuary 

All

Population Diversity

Stray hatchery 

fish interbreeding 

with wild fish

A,P,D

Secondary for 

Grays/Chinook

adults

Predation Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Dams A,P,D

Secondary for 

Upper Gorge 

juveniles

Direct Mortality Hatchery fish A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations19

8.4.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

The pervasive loss of critical spawning, incubation, and rearing habitat is a primary 

limiting factor for chum salmon throughout the Lower Columbia subdomain. Chum 

salmon typically spawn in upwelling areas of clean gravel beds in mainstem and sidechannel portions of low-gradient reaches above tidewater. These habitats have been 

practically eliminated in most systems through a combination of channel alteration and 

sedimentation that is attributable largely to past and current land uses; these include 

historical and current forest management, agriculture, rural residential uses, urban 

development, and gravel extraction. Low-elevation stream reaches have been directly 

affected by extensive channelization, diking, wetland conversion, stream clearing, and 

gravel extraction. Impaired watershed processes continue to limit chum salmon habitat 

through effects on floodplain and wetland habitat conditions and connectivity, riparian 

conditions and function, and channel structure.

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions, along with degraded floodplain habitat 

are identified as primary limiting factors for all Washington populations and the two 

Gorge populations. Channel structure and form issues and degraded riparian conditions

also are considered primary limiting factors for juveniles in all Washington populations 

and for juveniles and adults in the two Gorge populations. Sediment conditions are 

 19 Chum salmon fry from all populations may experience predation to varying degrees by hatchery-origin 

coho, steelhead, and Chinook smolts, although differences in life history patterns may moderate effects and 

the significance of these interactions is unknown.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-15

identified as a primary limiting factor for all Washington populations in the Coast 

stratum and for the Cowlitz, Kalama, and Washougal populations in the Cascade 

stratum, and they are considered a secondary limiting factor for the Oregon portion of 

the Coast and Cascade strata.20 In addition, water quality—specifically, elevated water 

temperature brought about through land use and hydropower reservoirs—is a primary 

factor for Kalama, Lewis, and Salmon Creek juveniles. Water quantity issues related to 

altered hydrology and flow timing have been identified as a primary limiting factor for 

juveniles in the Cowlitz and Kalama populations and as a secondary limiting factor for 

juveniles in all other chum populations.

In the Coast stratum, tributary habitat limiting factors are largely the same as those 

described above for the ESU as a whole and are attributable largely to past and current 

land uses. Lower reaches are mostly in agricultural and rural residential use and have 

been extensively modified by bank stabilization, levees, and tide gates. Private and state 

forest land predominates in the upper reaches of Coast ecozone subbasins. The high 

density of unimproved rural roads throughout the area leads to an abundance of fine 

sediment in tributary streams that covers spawning gravel and increases turbidity. In 

the Youngs Bay and Big Creek subbasins, hatchery weirs are identified as secondary 

limiting factors because they block access to historically productive spawning and 

rearing habitat for chum salmon. 

In the Cascade stratum, tributary habitat limiting factors are largely the same as those 

described above for the ESU as a whole, with the addition of road crossings that impede 

chum salmon passage; this has been identified as a secondary limiting factor in the 

Clackamas and Sandy subbasins. Land uses that have limited the productivity of 

tributary habitat in this stratum include forest management and timber harvest, 

agriculture, rural residential and urban development, and gravel extraction. A mix of 

private, state, and federal forest land predominates in the upper mainstem and 

headwater tributaries of the Cascade subbasins, while the lower mainstem and tributary 

reaches of most subbasins are characterized by agricultural and rural residential land 

use, with some urban development, especially in the Salmon Creek and lower 

Clackamas subbasins. 

In the Gorge stratum, habitat-related limiting factors result from past and current land 

uses; these include a mix of private, state, and federal forest land in the upper mainstem 

and headwater reaches of the Gorge subbasins, plus transportation and rural residential 

land uses, with some urban development, in lower mainstem and tributary reaches. 

Highway and transportation corridors run parallel to the Columbia River shoreline, 

traversing all creek drainages in ways that restrict access and disconnect upland and 

lowland habitat processes. The associated habitat degradation is considered a primary 

limiting factor for the Upper and Lower Gorge chum salmon populations. The Upper 

Gorge population also is significantly affected by habitat loss caused by inundation from 

 20 Tributary habitat limiting factors for chum salmon populations primarily reflect those identified in the 

Washington management unit plan. This is because chum salmon do not migrate far up tributaries and 

Oregon recovery planners categorized chum salmon limiting factors occurring in areas of tidal influence in 

the lower reaches of tributaries as estuarine. Thus, the apparent lack of tributary habitat limiting factors for 

Oregon populations is an artifact of differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies between the 

two states and not an actual difference in the extent of tributary habitat limiting factors or their effects on 

chum salmon populations. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-16

Bonneville Reservoir; it is likely that significant amounts of historical spawning and 

rearing habitat for this population have been inundated.

8.4.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors21

Estuary habitat conditions are important for juvenile chum salmon, which leave their 

natal streams as fry and spend considerable time rearing in the estuary. Water quantity 

issues related to altered hydrology and flow timing are identified as a primary limiting 

factor for all populations, as is impaired sediment and sand routing; these limiting 

factors are associated with hydroregulation at large storage reservoirs in the interior of 

the Columbia Basin, and, in the case of sediment issues, land uses both past and present. 

Much of the land surrounding the Columbia River estuary is in agricultural or rural 

residential use and has been extensively modified via dikes, levees, bank stabilization, 

and tide gates. Altered hydrology and sediment routing influence habitat-forming 

processes, the quantity and accessibility of habitats such as side channels and wetlands,

the dynamics of the Columbia River plume, and the estuarine food web. Channel 

structure issues, in the form of reduced habitat complexity and diversity, and reduced 

access to peripheral and transitional habitats such as side channels and wetlands also are 

identified as primary limiting factors for juveniles from all populations. Again, 

simplification of channel structure is related to conversion of land to other uses—

agricultural, rural residential, and as a transportation corridor—while juveniles’ access 

to side channels and wetlands is impaired by these same land uses but also by flow 

alterations caused by mainstem dams. 

Secondary limiting factors in the estuary that affect chum salmon are exposure to toxic 

contaminants (from urban, agricultural, and industrial sources) and elevated late 

summer and fall water temperatures, which are related to (1) land use practices that 

impair riparian function or decrease streamflow, and (2) large hydropower reservoirs.22

Altered food web dynamics involving a transition from a macrodetrital-based food web 

to a microdetrital-based food web also are considered a secondary limiting factor for all 

populations.23 These changes in the estuarine food web are caused primarily by 

 21 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the ESU, the estuarine limiting factors in this section and in Table 8-3 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Columbia River chum salmon 

populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine limiting 

factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly revised) 

through adaptive management. 

22 Although the management unit plans identified temperature impacts as a secondary limiting factor for 

juveniles in all populations, the timing of juvenile chum salmon migration and rearing raises questions 

about the significance of this limiting factor; see Section 8.4.3. 

23 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-17

increased microdetrital inputs from hydropower reservoirs and the loss of wetland 

habitats through diking and filling. 

8.4.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors

Flow management operations at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the Columbia 

Basin (Grand Coulee, Dworshak, etc.) affect all juvenile Columbia River chum salmon in 

the lower mainstem and estuary, and potentially in the plume—primarily by altering

flow volume and timing. These alterations impair sediment routing, influence habitatforming processes, reduce access to peripheral habitat, and change the dynamics of the 

Columbia River plume and the estuarine food web (see Section 8.4.2).24 Moreover, the 

large reservoirs associated with mainstem dams contribute to elevated water 

temperatures downstream in late summer and fall. Although the management unit 

recovery plans identified temperature impacts of the hydropower system as a secondary 

limiting factor for all juvenile chum salmon, juvenile chum salmon are rearing in and 

migrating through the mainstem in February through July, with peak presence in 

May(Dawley et al. 1986, McCabe et al. 1986, Roegner et al. 2004, Bottom et al. 2008, cited 

in Figure 2.2 of Carter et al. 2009). Thus, it is unlikely that elevated mainstem 

temperatures are having a significant impact on juvenile chum salmon. 

For the Upper Gorge population, which spawns above Bonneville Dam, passage issues 

at Bonneville and inundation of historical spawning habitat by Bonneville Reservoir are 

identified as primary limiting factors.25 For the Lower Gorge population, the availability 

of tailrace spawning habitat is affected by flows from the Columbia River hydropower 

system, with winter and early spring flows being critical to prevent dewatering of redds 

before emergence. 

There are no large tributary dams in the Coast ecozone. In the Cascade and Gorge 

ecozones, tributary dams are not identified as a primary or secondary limiting factor. 

Large dam complexes in the Cowlitz and Lewis systems may be affecting chum salmon 

spawning and rearing conditions by altering habitat-forming processes downstream, but 

the significance of these effects is unknown (and LCFRB 2010a does not explicitly 

identify such effects as limiting factors).

8.4.4 Harvest Limiting Factors

Historical high harvest rates of chum salmon may have compounded the effects of 

habitat losses during the last century, but harvest mortality is not considered a baseline 

or current limiting factor for Columbia River chum salmon. Commercial chum salmon 

fisheries were closed or drastically reduced in the 1950s. Harvest impacts are limited to 

illegal harvest and incidental take in lower river commercial gillnet and recreational

fisheries (LCFRB 2010a). Commercial fisheries for Chinook and coho salmon occur 

 24 It is likely that flow impacts of the hydropower system affect Lower Columbia River ESUs more through 

changes in habitat-forming processes (including impacts to the plume) and food web impacts than through 

changes in migratory travel time.

25 In the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement, NMFS assumed that survival of adult 

chum passing Bonneville Dam is 96 to 97 percent, based on data for Snake River Fall Chinook salmon 

(NMFS 2008f and 2010a). It is likely that significant areas of historical chum spawning habitat were 

inundated by Bonneville Reservoir. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-18

before adult chum salmon return in the late fall. Harvest-related mortality of chum 

salmon has been less than 5 percent per year since 1993 (LCFRB 2010a) and has averaged 

1.6 percent annually since 1998 (ODFW 2010). 

8.4.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors

Chum salmon have never been subject to significant hatchery production in the 

Columbia River for fishery mitigation programs. Hatchery-related factors were not 

identified as limiting for any Oregon chum salmon population. ODFW began releasing

chum salmon into the Big Creek subbasin in 2011 as part of a reintroduction program, 

using Grays River chum salmon as broodstock. In Washington, conservation hatchery 

programs are being used to supplement natural production in the Grays/Chinook and 

Lower Gorge populations. Population-level effects resulting from stray hatchery fish 

interbreeding with natural-origin fish were identified as a secondary limiting factor for 

the Grays/Chinook chum salmon, where analysis by the regional Hatchery Scientific 

Review Group estimated an 11 percent reduction in productivity; however, the HSRG 

analysis did not consider the positive demographic effects of increased natural 

spawning abundance through hatchery supplementation. Conservation hatchery 

programs are identified as a key component of reintroduction and recovery efforts for 

chum salmon populations in Oregon and Washington.

It is possible that juvenile chum salmon rearing in the estuary are affected by hatcheryorigin Chinook, steelhead, and coho juveniles. Potentially detrimental interactions 

include competition for food and space. However, differences in life history patterns 

may moderate effects, and the significance of interactions is unknown. NMFS (2011a)

and LCFRB (2010a) identified competition for food and space among hatchery and 

natural-origin juveniles in the estuary as a critical uncertainty. ODFW (2010) 

acknowledged that uncertainty but listed competition for food and space as a secondary 

limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS Northwest Region and 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define and describe the 

scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between hatchery-origin 

and natural-origin salmon and steelhead in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore

ocean habitats. 

8.4.6 Predation Limiting Factors

Predation by hatchery smolts in the estuary is identified as a secondary limiting factor 

for all Columbia River chum salmon. Chum salmon fry from all populations may 

experience predation by hatchery-origin coho, steelhead, and Chinook smolts, although 

differences in life history patterns may moderate effects, and the significance of 

interactions is unknown. In addition, predation by non-salmonid fish is identified as a 

secondary limiting factor for the Upper Gorge population. Although the extent of chum 

salmon production above Bonneville is unknown, fish spawning above the dam would 

experience predation by pikeminnow above and below Bonneville Dam and by walleye 

and smallmouth bass in the reservoir behind the dam. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-19

8.5 Baseline Threat Impacts and Reduction Targets

Table 8-4 shows the estimated impact on each Washington Columbia River chum 

salmon population resulting from potentially manageable threats, organized into six 

threat categories: tributary habitat degradation, estuary habitat degradation, 

hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation. Both baseline and target impacts are 

shown, with the targets representing levels that would be consistent with long-term 

recovery goals. Impact values indicate the percentage reduction in abundance and 

productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat 

category. The value associated with any particular threat category can be interpreted as 

the percent reduction in abundance and productivity from historical conditions if that 

threat category were the only one affecting the population. The table also shows the 

overall percentage improvement that is needed to achieve the target impacts and 

corresponding population status.26 These cumulative values across all threat categories 

(both baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive. Both the Oregon and 

Washington management unit plans use cumulative survivals across threat categories to 

illustrate the overall level of improvement needed. Each plan assumes that there is a 

direct proportional relationship between the projected changes in cumulative survival 

and the required changes in natural-origin spawner abundance and productivity. For 

populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 percent, Table 8-

4 does not report the exact value, in part because the value is highly uncertain.27

As an example, the baseline status of the Elochoman/Skamakowa chum salmon

population, circa 1999, has been severely reduced by the combined effects of multiple 

threats. The cumulative reduction in status was estimated at 93.3 percent from the 

multiplicative impacts of multiple threats acting across the salmon life cycle. Thus, 

current status is just 6.7 percent of the historical potential with no human impact. 

Tributary and estuary habitat impacts each accounted for reductions in population 

productivity of 25 percent or more, with corresponding reductions in abundance, spatial 

structure, and diversity. The Washington management unit plan identifies a recovery 

strategy involving significant reductions in the impact of habitat-related threats. For 

instance, the plan targets tributary habitat impacts to be reduced from the estimated 

baseline level of 90 percent to 45 percent (i.e., an approximately 100 percent 

improvement relative to baseline conditions). With the targeted reductions in individual 

impacts, the cumulative effect of all impacts would drop from 93.3 percent at baseline to 

55 percent at the target status. This change would translate into a more than 500 percent 

improvement in survival relative to the baseline. Although the population would still be 

experiencing abundance and productivity that are 74.7 percent lower than historical 

conditions, the extinction risk at this mortality level would be estimated sufficient to 

meet the targets for this plan.

 26 The percentage improvement (rounded to the nearest 10) in population survival needed to achieve target 

impacts is taken from Table 6-7 of LCFRB (2010a). For populations where the survival improvement needed 

is larger than 500 percent, this table does not report the exact value, for the reasons explained in Section 8.5. 

27 For some populations—many of them small—the survival improvement needed is very large and highly 

uncertain because various other factors also are uncertain (i.e., the population’s baseline persistence 

probability, the exact degree of impact of human activities on tributary habitat, and whether the 

population’s response to reductions in impacts will be linear). In addition, very small populations do not 

necessarily follow predictable patterns in their response to changing conditions.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-20

Baseline impacts reflect conditions prevalent at the time of ESA listing (circa 1999). Dam 

impacts reflect passage mortality, habitat loss caused by inundation, and loss of access to 

historical production areas. Hatchery impacts were limited to not more than 50 percent 

per population, in accordance with Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) 

assessments of the potential for genetic effects (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2009). 

Washington recovery planners derived estimates of impacts to tributary habitat using 

the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model. In general, the tributary habitat 

values in Table 8-4 have the highest degree of uncertainty relative to the other threat 

categories. (See Section 5.5 for more on the methodologies used to estimate 

baseline impacts.)

Estimates of threat impacts are useful in showing the relative magnitude of impacts on 

each population. Given the differences in methodologies, some values in Table 8-4 for 

Oregon and Washington populations are not necessarily directly comparable. Thus, 

values for Oregon populations are most directly comparable to those for other Oregon 

populations, and values for Washington populations are most directly comparable to 

those for other Washington populations. Regardless of differences in specific threat 

impact definitions and methods, the net effect of changes from all threats is useful in 

understanding the magnitude of population improvement needed to achieve the target 

population status. 

The target impacts in Table 8-4 represent one of several possible combinations of threat 

reductions that could conceivably close the conservation gap and lead to a population 

achieving its target status. The particular threat reductions shown in Table 8-4 reflect 

policy decisions and the methodologies and assumptions used by the management unit 

recovery planners. (For a description of how target impacts were developed, see Section

5.6.) In estimating impacts, management unit recovery planners evaluated each threat 

category independently (i.e., values in the table reflect the mortality of chum salmon 

exposed to that particular category of threats, whether or not they are exposed to threats 

in other categories). The estimates of baseline threat impacts have high levels of 

uncertainty and in many cases should be considered working hypotheses that are 

testable as part of recovery plan implementation. Despite this uncertainty, it is the expert 

judgment of NMFS and management unit scientists that, based on the best available 

information at this time, the estimates of baseline threat impacts provide a reasonable 

estimate of the relative magnitude of different sources of anthropogenic mortality and 

serve as an adequate basis for designing initial recovery actions.28 As more and better 

information is collected, it will be applied to recovery efforts in an adaptive 

management framework.

As shown in Table 8-4, most of the gains in the viability of Washington chum salmon 

populations are targeted to be achieved by improving tributary and estuarine habitat. 

Because potentially manageable harvest, hatchery, and predation impacts on chum

salmon already are relatively low, there is little opportunity to further reduce threats in 

these sectors. Hydropower actions also are projected to benefit the Upper Gorge 

population, which is affected by Bonneville Dam and its reservoir. 

 28 As implementation proceeds, research, monitoring, and evaluation and adaptive management will be key 

in helping to refine scientific understanding of the impact of threats on population persistence and of the 

extent to which management actions are reducing threats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-21

Oregon recovery planners did not develop current and target threat impacts for chum 

salmon populations because quantitative information for use in calculating baseline or 

target threat impacts or the likelihood of recovery goals being achieved was not 

available (ODFW 2010). Recovery planners developed a chum salmon recovery strategy 

that involves identifying specific habitat needs and proceeding with reintroduction,

initially in the Coast stratum (see Appendix I of ODFW 2010). 

More information on threat reduction scenarios, including methodologies to determine 

baseline and target impacts, is available in the management unit plans (ODFW 2010 p. 

152 and LCFRB 2010a pp. 4-30 through 4-33 and 6-37 through 6-40). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-22

Table 8-4

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threat, and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of Columbia River Chum Salmon (Washington Populations Only

29)

Impacts at Baseline30 Impacts at Target % Survival Washington 

Population T. Hab31 Est

32 Dams33 Harv34 Hat35 Pred36 Cumulative37 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

Improvement

Needed38

Coast

Grays/Chinook 0.80 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.8770 0.80 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.8770 0%

Eloch/Skam 0.90 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.9330 0.45 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.5497 >500%

Mill/Ab/Germ 0.90 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.9330 0.45 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.7497 >500%

Cascade

Cowlitz (Fall) 0.96 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.9729 0.48 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.5742 >500%

Cowlitz (Summer) 0.96 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.9729 0.48 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.5742 >500%

Kalama 0.90 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.9316 0.45 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.5451 >500%

Lewis 0.90 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.9316 0.45 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.5497 >500%

Salmon Creek 0.98 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.9863 0.98 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.9863 0%

Washougal 0.96 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.9863 0.48 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.5742 >500%

 29 Oregon populations are not included in this table because data are not available to quantify the baseline or target threat impacts for these populations.

30 Impact figures represent a percentage reduction in abundance and productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat category. See 

Sections 5.5 and 5.6 for information on methodologies.

31 Reduction in tributary habitat production potential relative to historical conditions.

32 Reduction in juvenile survival in the Columbia River estuary as a result of habitat changes (relative to historical conditions); excludes predation.

33 Reflects passage mortality, habitat loss caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas.

34 Includes direct and indirect mortality.

35 Reflects only the negative impacts of hatchery-origin fish, such as high pHOS and low PNI (proportion of natural influence), not the benefits of conservation 

hatchery programs.

36 Includes the aggregate predation rate in the Columbia River mainstem and estuary by northern pikeminnow, marine mammals, Caspian terns, and cormorants.

37 Cumulative values (both baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive and are equal to (1-[(1-Mthab)(1-Mest)(1-Mdams)(1-Mharv)(1-Mhatch)(1-Mpred)]). 

38 Survival improvements indicate the percentage improvement (rounded to the nearest 10) in population survival needed to achieve target impacts and are taken 

from Table 6-7 of LCFRB (2010a). For populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 percent, this table does not report the exact value, for 

the reasons explained in Section 8.5. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-23

Table 8-4

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Threat, and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of Columbia River Chum Salmon (Washington Populations Only

29)

Impacts at Baseline30 Impacts at Target % Survival Washington 

Population T. Hab31 Est

32 Dams33 Harv34 Hat35 Pred36 Cumulative37 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

Improvement

Needed38

Gorge

Lower Gorge—WA 

portion 0.40 0.25 0.30 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.7126 0.40 0.25 0.30 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.7126 0%

Upper Gorge—WA 

portion 0.97 0.25 0.96 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.9992 0.49 0.13 0.48 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.7807 >500%
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-24

8.6 ESU Recovery Strategy for Columbia River Chum Salmon

This section describes the recovery strategy for Columbia River chum salmon. A general 

summary of the ESU-level strategy is presented first. This is followed by subsections on 

each of the threat categories and critical uncertainties that pertain to the strategy. Where 

appropriate, stratum-specific strategies are described for each threat category. 

8.6.1 Strategy Summary

The ESU recovery strategy for Columbia River chum salmon focuses on improving 

tributary and estuarine habitat conditions, reducing or mitigating hydropower impacts, 

and reestablishing chum salmon populations where they may have been extirpated. The 

goal of the strategy is to increase the abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial 

structure of chum salmon populations such that the Coast and Cascade chum salmon 

strata are restored to a high probability of persistence and the persistence probability of 

the two Gorge populations is improved (including achieving a high persistence 

probability for the Lower Gorge population). The ESU recovery strategy has the 

following main elements:

1. Protect and improve the Grays/Chinook and Lower Gorge populations, which 

together produce the majority of Columbia River chum salmon (LCFRB 2010a) 

and are the only populations in the ESU not currently at very high risk of 

extinction.

2. Identify, protect, and restore chum salmon spawning habitat in lower mainstem 

and off-channel areas of large rivers and streams that are fed by upwelling from 

intergravel flows or springs. Restore hydrologic, riparian, and sediment 

processes (e.g., large woody debris recruitment) that support the accumulation of 

spawning gravel and reduce inputs of fine sediment.

3. Restore off-channel and side-channel habitats (alcoves, wetlands, floodplains, 

etc.) in the Columbia River estuary, where chum salmon fry rely on peripheral 

and transitional habitats for extended estuarine rearing. 

4. Use hatchery reintroduction as appropriate in reestablishing chum salmon 

populations and continue using supplementation to enhance the abundance of 

the Grays/Chinook and Lower Gorge populations.

Restoring tributary spawning and estuary rearing habitat is essential in the recovery of 

Columbia River chum salmon. Although the recovery strategy includes other 

components, no other factor can effectively bring about recovery (LCFRB 2010a). 

The Oregon management unit plan’s description of a systematic, adaptive approach to 

chum salmon recovery can be viewed as a template for the ESU. The approach involves 

(1) identifying, assessing, and protecting existing chum salmon habitat, especially in 

currently productive areas, (2) restoring spawning and rearing habitat in all ecozones as 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-25

needed to support recovered populations,39 (3) reestablishing populations in selected

subbasins, (4) monitoring to evaluate the program and allow for adaptive management, 

and (5) applying successful techniques elsewhere (see ODFW 2010, Appendix I). Oregon 

intends to focus initial efforts on the Clatskanie and Scappoose populations and then, 

based on results in those populations, expand efforts to populations in the Cascade and 

Gorge ecozones. Washington intends to focus initial efforts on the ElochomanSkamokawa, Mill/Abernathy/Germany, Lewis, and Washougal populations. 

Reestablishing chum salmon populations could occur through recolonization or 

hatchery reintroduction. Recolonization is the process of fish from other populations 

straying into a subbasin and spawning successfully; this may lead to the establishment 

of self-sustaining, locally adapted populations. If chum salmon abundances are so low 

that recolonization cannot occur, hatchery reintroduction may have a higher likelihood 

of success. For either method to be successful, the factors that led to extirpation will need 

to have been addressed—thus the emphasis on habitat assessment and restoration.

As part of a series of 3- to 5-year implementation schedules, management unit planners 

will work with NMFS staff to prioritize individual actions within each threat category, 

rather than across threat categories (see Chapter 11 for more on implementation). 

Key critical uncertainties that need to be addressed to support implementation of nearterm actions for chum salmon relate to current population status, estuarine habitat 

requirements, the extent and location of currently or potentially suitable habitat, and the 

effectiveness of hatchery reintroduction compared to natural recolonization (see 

Section 8.6.8).

The subsections below describe recovery strategies and near-term and long-term 

priorities for each threat category. For specific management actions in each threat 

category, linked to population and location, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 

2010a, ODFW 2010, NMFS 2013).

8.6.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy

Tributary habitat protection and improvement are essential to the recovery of Columbia 

River chum salmon, which will benefit from the regional tributary habitat strategy 

described in Section 4.1.2. The regional strategy is directed toward protecting and 

restoring high-quality, well-functioning salmon and steelhead habitat through a 

combination of (1) site-specific management actions that will protect habitat and provide 

benefits relatively quickly, (2) watershed-based actions that will repair habitat-forming 

processes and provide benefits over the long term, and (3) landscape-scale 

programmatic actions that affect a class of activities (such as stormwater management or 

forest practices) over multiple watersheds. The management unit plans set a high 

priority on identifying and improving chum salmon spawning habitat, reducing the 

impacts of sediment on survival to emergence, and improving juvenile rearing habitat.40

Because of a lack of habitat data in Oregon specific to chum salmon, physical 

 39 Recovery plan implementers will look for opportunities to combine chum habitat restoration efforts with 

those for fall Chinook, to increase efficiency.

40 Because chum salmon leave tributary habitat at a very early age, improving estuarine habitats will also be 

essential to improving juvenile rearing habitats for chum salmon. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-26

assessments are needed to identify areas for reintroduction, estimate carrying capacity, 

and identify habitat in need of immediate restoration. Key habitats to be protected or 

restored for chum salmon include lower mainstem and off-channel areas of large rivers 

and streams fed by upwelling from intergravel flows or springs. Protecting key 

production areas in the Grays River and Columbia River mainstem will be critical. 

Near-term habitat improvements will depend on implementation of high-priority 

tributary actions that are identified in the management unit plans, completion of 

recovery plan implementation schedules—including a prioritization and sequencing 

framework for additional habitat actions—and completion of additional assessment 

work. The Oregon management unit plan recommends that physical habitat surveys be 

initiated as soon as possible to determine the quality and quantity of chum salmon 

spawning habitat for the entire historical range of chum salmon in Oregon if funding is 

available but with priority given to areas of high intrinsic habitat potential in the 

Scappoose and Clatskanie subbasins if funds are limited (ODFW 2010, Appendix I). 

Priority site-specific actions for chum salmon will focus on protecting, restoring, or 

creating lowland floodplain function, riparian function, and stream habitat complexity. 

Priority restoration projects will include those to create or improve access to off-channel 

and side-channel habitat (alcoves, wetlands, floodplains, etc.) and restore riparian areas 

and instream habitat complexity; this includes improving recruitment of large wood to 

streams. The Washington management unit plan also identifies the creation of chum 

salmon spawning channels as a priority short-term action. The subsections below 

summarize additional, stratum-specific tributary habitat strategies for Columbia River 

chum salmon. 

Ultimately, restoration of adequate habitat for chum salmon will be challenging because 

of the high proportion of habitat in private ownership.

8.6.2.1 Coast-Stratum Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Columbia River chum salmon strategy in the Coast stratum, 

considerations include the following:

• Protecting the existing production areas in the Grays River will be key. The 

Grays/Chinook chum salmon population is a core and genetic legacy population 

and one of only two populations in the ESU with appreciable natural production.

• Lowland areas are primarily in agricultural or rural residential use. These areas 

have been extensively modified by dikes, levees, bank stabilization, and tide 

gates; efforts to protect and restore habitat complexity will be priorities here. 

Actions will include breaching, lowering, or relocating dikes and levees where 

possible to improve access to off-channel habitats for juvenile chum salmon, 

particularly in the Clatskanie, Scappoose, Grays, and Mill/Abernathy/Germany, 

and Elochoman/Skamokowa subbasins (ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010a).

• Upland areas are predominantly state and private timber land; these lands must 

be managed to protect and restore watershed processes. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-27

• Physical habitat surveys are needed to determine the quality and quantity of 

chum salmon spawning habitat within high intrinsic potential areas of the 

Scappoose and Clatskanie subbasins. Assessments should include evaluations of 

gravel quality, hyporheic flow, upwelling, and water quality conditions 

(temperature, suspended sediments dissolved oxygen, etc.). 

• Sediment source analyses and implementation of actions to reduce sediment will 

be needed in most Coast-stratum tributaries. 

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

the Oregon plan identifies a need to investigate whether headwater springs in the 

Youngs Bay, Big Creek, Clatskanie, and Scappoose subbasins are drying up as a result of 

land management practices. The Oregon management unit plan also emphasizes the

almost universal deficiency of large woody debris in the Coast ecozone as a contributing 

factor to the inability of individual stream systems to sort and store gravel suitable for 

use by chum salmon.

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 8-4, 

habitat improvements of up to 50 percent will be needed for some Washington Coaststratum chum salmon populations. Significant habitat actions will be needed in all areas 

to protect existing habitats. Habitat improvement targets for Oregon chum salmon 

populations were not quantified because of a lack of baseline habitat and population 

data for chum salmon.

8.6.2.2 Cascade-Stratum Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Columbia River chum salmon habitat strategy in the Cascade 

stratum, considerations include the following:

• In the lower reaches of most Cascade subbasins, including the Lower Cowlitz, 

North Fork Lewis, East Fork Lewis, Salmon Creek, and Clackamas, floodplains 

have been drastically altered or disconnected as a result of channel modification 

to facilitate and protect development, agricultural land, and, in some cases, 

gravel mining. Restoration of these areas will need to be balanced with the need 

to protect existing infrastructure and control flood risk. Restoring floodplain 

function and habitat complexity in these areas is crucial in restoring chum 

salmon spawning and rearing habitat.

• Upper portions of the East Fork Lewis, Washougal, Clackamas, and Sandy 

subbasins are primarily federal forest lands. Continued implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan will be crucial in protecting and restoring watershed 

processes in these areas. 

• State or private forest land predominates in the upper portions of the Kalama, 

North Fork Lewis, and Salmon Creek subbasins. These lands must be managed 

to protect and restore watershed processes.

• The stratum includes the most heavily urbanized areas in the Columbia Basin. 

Managing the impacts of growth and development on watershed processes and 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-28

habitat conditions will be key to the protection and improvement of habitat 

conditions for chum salmon in these areas. 

• Physical habitat surveys are needed to determine the quality and quantity of 

chum salmon spawning habitat within areas of high intrinsic potential. 

Assessments should include evaluations of gravel quality, hyporheic flow, 

upwelling, and water quality conditions (temperature, suspended sediments 

dissolved oxygen, etc.). 

Sediment issues will be addressed generally by restoring watershed processes and 

dealing with legacy road issues. In some cases (e.g., the Sandy), assessment to identify 

sediment sources is noted as a first step before additional actions can be taken. The 

Oregon management unit plan also includes actions to address flow issues in the 

Clackamas subbasin and roadway-related passage issues in lower Sandy river 

tributaries. Implementation of the city of Portland’s Bull Run Water Supply habitat 

conservation plan will include habitat restoration in the Sandy River delta and lower 

reaches that will improve habitat for chum salmon. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 8-4, 

the scale of habitat improvements needed for Washington Cascade chum salmon 

populations ranges from minimal for the Salmon Creek population to a 50 percent 

reduction in habitat impacts in other Washington populations. Habitat improvement 

targets for Oregon chum salmon populations were not quantified because of a lack of 

baseline habitat and population data for chum salmon.

8.6.2.3 Gorge-Stratum Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the Columbia River chum salmon habitat strategy in the Gorge 

stratum, considerations include the following: 

• It is likely that significant amounts of historical chum spawning habitat for the 

Upper Gorge population have been inundated by Bonneville Reservoir.

• In the lower reaches of most Gorge streams, floodplains have been drastically 

altered or disconnected as a result of channel modification to facilitate and 

protect development and transportation infrastructure. For the Upper Gorge 

population, site-specific actions will include addressing or mitigating the impacts 

of the highway and railroad transportation corridors that run parallel to the 

Columbia River shoreline, traversing all creek drainages in ways that restrict 

access and disconnect upland and lowland habitat processes.

• Upper portions of some Gorge tributaries are largely federal, state, and private

forest land. These lands must be managed to protect and restore watershed 

processes.

• Physical habitat surveys are needed to determine the quality and quantity of 

chum salmon spawning habitat within areas of high intrinsic potential. 

Assessments should include evaluations of gravel quality, hyporheic flow, 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-29

upwelling, and water quality conditions (temperature, suspended sediments 

dissolved oxygen, etc.). 

Restoring floodplain connectivity and function is called for at locations below Bonneville 

Dam; however, there is little opportunity to implement these floodplain measures above 

Bonneville Dam because much floodplain habitat was inundated by Bonneville 

Reservoir. For this reason, habitat efforts above the dam will rely on other strategies. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 8-4, 

reductions in baseline tributary habitat impacts needed to meet target statuses range 

from minimal for the Upper Gorge population to a 50 percent reduction in habitat 

impacts for the Washington portion of the Lower Gorge population. Habitat 

improvement targets for Oregon chum salmon populations were not quantified because 

of a lack of baseline habitat and population data for chum salmon. 

8.6.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy

Estuarine habitat improvements are likely to be critical for Columbia River chum

salmon, which leave their natal tributaries at a very early age and are thought to be 

severely limited by a paucity of intertidal marshes and similar estuarine wetlands 

needed for refuge and extended rearing. Habitat analysis for fall Chinook salmon 

indicates that populations in the Coast ecozone historically relied on wetland areas at 

the confluences of the tributaries and the mainstem Columbia (Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center 2010); because the habitat needs of fall Chinook and chum salmon appear 

to overlap considerably, some NMFS scientists have suggested that these same 

confluence areas may also be significant for chum salmon. 

Improving Columbia River estuary habitat as described in the regional estuary habitat 

strategy will benefit all Columbia Basin ESUs, including Columbia River chum salmon. 

(For a summary of the regional estuarine habitat strategy, see Section 4.2.2.) The regional 

strategy reflects actions presented in the Oregon and Washington management unit 

plans to reduce estuarine habitat-related threats and is consistent with actions in the 

Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). 

For Columbia River chum salmon, the assessment process described as part of the 

regional strategy should include assessment of the tidal portions of tributaries and their 

confluence with the mainstem Columbia. Developing implementation priorities for 

estuarine habitat actions also should include establishment of milestones or expected 

trends in improved habitat conditions in high-priority intertidal areas. 

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) assumes that feasible estuarine habitat improvements and predation 

management measures could result in a maximum increase of 20 percent in the number 

of outmigrating juveniles leaving the Columbia River estuary. Washington recovery 

planners set targets of reducing anthropogenically enhanced mortality in the estuary for 

chum salmon populations based on the estuary module and their own approach to 

threat reductions (LCFRB 2010a, Table 6-7). Oregon did not quantify baseline and target 

threat impacts for chum salmon populations because data were inadequate to do so. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-30

Ultimately, restoring adequate habitat for chum salmon in the Columbia River estuary 

will be challenging because of the high proportion of habitat in private ownership.

8.6.4 Hydropower Strategy

Chum salmon are expected to benefit from the regional hydropower strategy (see 

Section 4.3.2), which involves improving passage survival at Bonneville Dam for the 

Upper Gorge populations and, specifically for chum salmon, ensuring adequate flows in 

the Bonneville Dam tailrace and downstream throughout migration, spawning,

incubation, and emergence. In addition, NMFS expects that implementation of 

mainstem flow management operations designed to benefit spring migrants from the 

interior of the Columbia Basin will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, 

the plume for all Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. Because 

Columbia River chum salmon are distributed low in tributary subbasins, reintroduction 

above tributary dam complexes is not part of the recovery strategy. 

NMFS estimates that survival of Columbia River chum salmon passing Bonneville Dam 

was 95.1 percent for juveniles from 2002 to 2009 and 96.9 percent for adults from 2002 to 

2007 (NMFS 2008a). NMFS expects that implementation of actions in the 2008 FCRPS 

Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement will improve juvenile chum salmon survival 

at Bonneville Dam by less than 1⁄2 percent, and that adult survival will be maintained at 

recent high levels (NMFS 2008a). Consequently, Oregon has not incorporated survival 

benefits from passage improvements at Bonneville into the hydropower threat reduction 

targets for Oregon populations above Bonneville.41 The Washington management unit 

plan assumes that actions identified in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement will aid adults and juveniles from all chum salmon populations originating 

above Bonneville Dam. 

FCRPS Biological Opinion actions also will provide adequate conditions for chum 

salmon spawning in the mainstem Columbia River in the area of the Ives Island complex 

and/or access to the Hamilton and Hardy Creeks to protect spawning areas for the 

Lower Gorge population.

For information on how hydropower operations will improve the survival of chum 

salmon in the Columbia River estuary, see the regional hydropower strategy in

Section 4.3.2. 

In its management unit plan, Oregon incorporated several actions addressing impacts of 

the Columbia River hydropower system that are not included in the FCRPS Biological 

Opinion and its 2010 Supplement but that Oregon maintains are needed to benefit 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations that spawn above Bonneville 

Dam. The state of Oregon’s position is that the FCRPS action agencies should conduct 

operations in addition to those incorporated in the FCRPS Biological Opinion to address 

the needs of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Oregon is a plaintiff in litigation against 

various federal agencies, including NMFS, challenging the adequacy of measures in the 

FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. NMFS does not agree with Oregon 

 41 Hydropower-related threat reduction targets for Oregon populations above Bonneville Dam are 

associated with removal of Powerdale Dam on the Hood River.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-31

regarding the need for or likely efficacy of the additional actions Oregon proposed in 

that litigation, including the actions in the Oregon management unit plan that are not 

part of the FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. For more detail on these 

actions and NMFS’ view of them, including their potential to benefit chum salmon, see 

the regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2. 

The subsections below summarize stratum-level hydropower strategies for 

chum salmon. 

8.6.4.1 Coast-Stratum Hydropower Strategies

There are no tributary dams in the Coast ecozone, so the hydropower strategy for the 

Coast stratum is to implement the flow management operations designed to benefit 

spring migrants from the interior of the Columbia Basin; these flow management 

operations will also improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the plume for all 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations.

8.6.4.2 Cascade-Stratum Hydropower Strategies

Tributary dams in the Cascade ecozone are not identified as limiting factors for Cascade 

chum salmon populations, so the hydropower strategy for the Cascade stratum is to 

implement the mainstem hydropower actions that are expected to improve estuarine

and, potentially, plume survival for all Columbia River chum salmon populations. The 

quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat for chum salmon in the North 

Fork Lewis and Cowlitz are affected by the rate at which water is discharged at Merwin 

and Mayfield dams, respectively. The operational plans for the Lewis and Cowlitz dams, 

in conjunction with fish management plans, should include flow regimes (minimum 

flow and ramping rate requirements, etc.) that enhance the lower river habitat for 

chum salmon.

8.6.4.3 Gorge-Stratum Hydropower Strategies

Tributary dams do not affect the Lower Gorge or Upper Gorge populations. Reductions 

in passage impacts at Bonneville Dam, as outlined in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion

and its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 2008f and 2010a), are expected to provide slight benefits 

to the Upper Gorge population, and the FCRPS will be operated to provide adequate 

conditions for chum salmon spawning in the mainstem Columbia River below 

Bonneville Dam (i.e., the Lower Gorge population). For more information, see the 

regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2.

8.6.5 Harvest Strategy

The harvest strategy for chum salmon is to avoid significant increases in the current very 

low incidental fishery impacts by continuing to limit mainstem and tributary 

recreational fisheries for other species (primarily hatchery late-fall Chinook and coho) in 

times and areas where chum salmon are present. The Washington management unit 

plan identifies targets for reductions in impacts of all threat categories based on a 

strategy of equitable sharing of the recovery burden. Thus, the Washington plan 

describes fishery impact reductions from the 5 percent baseline rate for chum salmon at 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-32

the time of listing. However, the current incidental fishery impact rate of 2 percent or 

less per year meets impact reduction targets identified in the Washington management 

unit plan (LCFRB 2010a).

8.6.6 Hatchery Strategy

The hatchery recovery strategy for Columbia River chum salmon is to use hatcheries to 

supplement and reduce risks to natural populations as appropriate, and to use hatchery 

reintroduction as appropriate to reestablish populations where they have been 

extirpated or nearly so. Reintroduction using hatchery chum salmon would be 

coordinated with habitat protection and restoration and triggered by a determination 

that natural chum salmon abundances are so low that recolonization would likely not be 

successful. Steps in the reintroduction strategy are to identify and obtain suitable 

broodstock, identify facilities for use in the conservation hatchery program, identify 

production goals and program duration, identify artificial production techniques, and 

identify release strategies for the reintroduction program. Experimental 

supplementation and reintroduction programs will be accompanied by aggressive 

monitoring and evaluation programs. 

8.6.6.1 Coast-Stratum Hatchery Strategy

In the Coast stratum, the hatchery strategy is to continue the existing hatchery 

supplementation program and expand supplementation or reintroduction to other 

populations as deemed appropriate. The Grays River hatchery program produces chum 

salmon to augment natural production and reduce extinction risks to naturally 

spawning Grays River chum salmon. This program occurs in conjunction with habitat 

restoration efforts in the Grays subbasin. The program also is considered an important 

safety net for chum in the lower Columbia in general (LCFRB 2010a, Volume II).

Oregon also recently initiated a chum salmon hatchery program at its Big Creek 

hatchery, using Grays River fish as broodstock. Chum salmon from this program were 

first released into the Big Creek subbasin in 2011 as part of a reintroduction program. 

The Oregon management unit plan’s chum salmon recovery strategy focuses initially on 

the Coast stratum. This is because the Coast-stratum subbasins are believed to have been 

less altered by human development than subbasins in other strata; thus Coast-stratum 

subbasins provide the best opportunity to test hypotheses regarding re-establishing selfsustaining chum salmon populations. (Oregon will use lessons learned from chum 

salmon recovery efforts in the Coast stratum to inform efforts to improve or create 

habitat and to reestablish chum salmon throughout the ESU.) 

No hatchery chum salmon are currently released into other Coast-stratum subbasins, 

although other reintroduction or supplementation programs may be developed. 

8.6.6.2 Cascade-Stratum Hatchery Strategy

In the Cascade stratum, the hatchery strategy is to develop supplementation or 

reintroduction programs for Cascade-stratum populations as deemed appropriate. 

Currently, no hatchery chum salmon are released in the Cascade stratum. (The 

Washougal hatchery produces chum salmon for an enhancement program to assist in 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-33

rebuilding of the Lower Gorge chum salmon population). The Washington management 

unit plan notes that for the Cascade populations, one potential hatchery strategy is to 

develop a chum salmon broodstock using natural returns or some other appropriate 

population but does not lay out any timelines or decision points for that strategy. The 

Oregon management unit plan will focus efforts first in the Coast stratum and use 

lessons learned there to inform efforts to improve or create habitat and to reestablish 

chum salmon throughout the ESU. 

8.6.6.3 Gorge-Stratum Hatchery Strategy

In the Gorge stratum, the hatchery strategy is to continue the existing hatchery 

supplementation program and expand supplementation or reintroduction as deemed 

appropriate. Currently, no hatchery chum salmon are produced in the Gorge stratum; 

however, the Washougal hatchery produces chum salmon for an enhancement program 

to assist in rebuilding the Lower Gorge population. This program uses chum salmon 

spawning in the Ives Island area for broodstock with a goal of enhancing chum salmon 

returns to Duncan Creek. The program occurs in conjunction with habitat restoration 

efforts in Duncan Creek. This program also acts as a safety net in the event that 

mainstem Columbia flow operations severely limit the natural spawning of chum 

salmon in Hamilton and Hardy creeks and in the Ives Island area below Bonneville 

Dam. The Washington management unit plan also notes the possibility of using a 

conservation hatchery program for the Upper Gorge population. The Oregon 

management unit plan will focus chum salmon recovery efforts first in the Coast 

stratum and use lessons learned there to inform efforts to improve or create habitat and 

to reestablish chum salmon throughout the ESU. 

8.6.7 Predation Strategy

The regional predation strategy (see Section 4.6.2) involves reducing predation by birds, 

fish, and marine mammals and will benefit all Lower Columbia ESUs, including 

Columbia River chum salmon. 

8.6.8 Critical Uncertainties

Each aspect of the chum salmon recovery strategy has a number of critical uncertainties, 

including the overarching questions of why some chum salmon populations are 

performing better than others and what the implications of these differences are with 

respect to recovery. To answer these questions, additional data are needed on chum 

salmon population characteristics, habitat usage and availability, interspecies predation 

on chum salmon juveniles, and hatchery reintroductions of chum salmon. In addition, 

for all ESUs there are uncertainties regarding how habitat actions will translate into 

changes in productivity and capacity (Roni et al. 2011). Prioritizing and identifying next 

steps in resolving uncertainties is a near-term priority. Critical uncertainties specific to 

the Columbia River chum salmon recovery strategy include the following:

• Historical role of the Gorge populations and appropriate target persistence 

probabilities, and abundance and productivity targets for them.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-34

• Total adult spawning escapement, adult productivity, juvenile survival, and life 

history diversity of Columbia River chum salmon populations; 

• Chum salmon’s estuarine habitat requirements and how they overlap with those 

of fall Chinook

• Extent to which chum salmon use intertidal estuary-tributary “confluence” 

habitats and, if so, whether they are the same habitats used by fall Chinook

• Current extent of suitable or potentially suitable chum salmon habitat

• Best locations for restoration of chum salmon spawning habitat

• Effectiveness (both short term and long term) of constructed chum salmon 

spawning channels as a restoration strategy

• Relative effectiveness of hatchery reintroduction, hatchery supplementation, and 

natural recolonization in reestablishing and recovering chum salmon 

populations

• Significance of ecological interactions between hatchery- and natural-origin fish, 

such as predation by steelhead and coho on chum salmon (LCFRB 2010a)

• Potential for incidental harvest of chum salmon to increase in terminal fishing 

areas as chum salmon are reintroduced in Oregon and populations increase 

These critical uncertainties represent preliminary priorities identified by Oregon and 

Washington recovery planners and NMFS Northwest Regional Office and Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center staff during a November 2010 workshop. They are preliminary 

priorities only (and are not in ranked order); as described in Chapter 10, additional 

discussion among local recovery planners and NMFS staff will be needed to finalize 

future research and monitoring priorities for chum salmon. 

The management unit plans identify more comprehensive critical uncertainties and 

research, monitoring, and evaluation needs that, along with list above, will provide the 

basis for these future discussions. The White Salmon and Washington management unit 

plans have discrete sections on critical uncertainties for all of the ESUs in general (see 

Section 8.3 of NMFS 2013, pp. 8-4 through 8-6, and Section 9.6 of LCFRB 2010a, pp. 9-68 

through 9-73), while the Oregon management unit plan embeds relevant critical 

uncertainties within subsections on the four VSP parameters and five ESA listing factors 

(see Sections 8.4 and 8.5, respectively, of ODFW 2010). In addition, in June 2010, the 

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board completed the Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

Program for Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead as a companion to its recovery plan 

(LCFRB 2010b). This document also describes critical uncertainties—and Section 8.6.4 of 

ODFW (2010) lists research, monitoring, and evaluation needs to address uncertainties 

related to Oregon’s chum salmon recovery strategy. The list above does not include 

critical uncertainties that apply to multiple ESUs; these will be discussed and considered 

as decisions are made in implementation. In addition, the critical uncertainties above are 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-35

of a technical nature; there are also many critical uncertainties related to social, political, 

and economic issues.

Critical uncertainties are one element of research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) and 

adaptive management, which will be key components of the chum salmon recovery 

strategy (see Chapter 10 for more discussion of RME and adaptive management for this 

recovery plan).

8.7 Delisting Criteria Conclusion for Columbia River

Chum Salmon

The requirement for determining that a species no longer requires the protection of the 

ESA is that the species is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future, based on evaluation of the listing factors 

specified in ESA section 4(a)(1). To remove the Columbia River chum salmon ESU from 

the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (that is, to delist the 

ESU), NMFS must determine that the ESU, as evaluated under the ESA listing factors, is 

no longer likely to become endangered. 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate 

objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination in 

accordance with the provisions of the ESA that the species be removed from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The 

biological and threats criteria in this plan, taken together, meet this statutory 

requirement.

As described in Section 8.3, if the scenario in Table 8-2 were achieved, it would slightly 

exceed the WLC TRT’s viability criteria in the Coast and Cascade strata (in the latter 

case, the scenario would exceed the criterion for number of populations but just meet the 

scoring criterion) (see Table 8-5). However, the scenario would not meet criteria in the 

Gorge stratum because only one Gorge population (the Lower Gorge) would be viable, 

instead of two (see Table 8-5).42 Exceeding the criteria in the Coast and Cascade strata 

was intentional on the part of local recovery planners to compensate for uncertainties 

about the feasibility of meeting the WLC TRT’s criteria in the Gorge stratum.

 42 As discussed in Section 2.5.4, the TRT’s criteria for high probability of stratum persistence require that two 

or more populations be viable and that the average score for all populations in the stratum be 2.25 or higher. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-36

Table 8-5

Chum Salmon Recovery Scenario Scores Relative to WLC TRT’s Viability Criteria

Species Number of Primary Populations Stratum Average Criteria

Coast Cascade Gorge Total Coast Cascade Gorge

n ≥ high 5 3 1 9 Avg. score 2.29 2.25 3

Chum

TRT criterion 

(n ≥ 2) 

met?

Yes Yes No

TRT criterion 

(avg. ≥ 2.25) 

met?

Yes Yes Yes

Source: Based on LCFRB (2010a), Table 4-7.

Recovery planners’ uncertainty about meeting WLC TRT criteria in the Gorge chum 

stratum is based on questions about available habitat and anthropogenic impacts that 

are unlikely to change in the near future (e.g., inundation of habitat by Bonneville 

Reservoir) and on questions regarding Gorge strata and population delineations and 

historical role (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). These questions include whether the Gorge 

populations were highly persistent historically, whether they functioned as independent 

populations within their stratum in the same way that the Coast and Cascade 

populations did, and whether the Gorge stratum itself should be considered a separate 

stratum from the Cascade stratum.

As discussed in Section 3.2, NMFS has considered the WLC TRT’s viability criteria (from 

McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006 and summarized in Table 2-3), the additional 

recommendations in McElhany et al. (2007), the recovery scenarios and population-level 

goals in the management unit plans, and the questions management unit planners raised 

regarding the historical role of the Gorge stratum. 

NMFS has concluded that the WLC TRT’s criteria adequately describe the characteristics 

of an ESU that meet or exceed the requirement for determining that a species no longer 

needs the protection of the ESA. These criteria provide a framework within which to 

evaluate specific recovery scenarios. NMFS has evaluated the recovery scenario

presented in the management unit plans for Columbia River chum salmon (summarized 

in Table 3-1 of this recovery plan) and the associated population-level abundance and 

productivity goals (see Section 8.3). 

Regarding the divergence of the scenario from the WLC TRT’s criteria, the TRT noted in 

its revised viability criteria (McElhany et al. 2006) the need for case-by-case evaluations 

of the continuum of ESU-level risk associated with some strata not meeting their criteria. 

In commenting on the recovery scenarios presented in the interim Washington 

management unit plan43—and by extension the recovery scenarios presented in Table 3-

1 of this plan—the WLC TRT stated that achieving the recovery scenarios would 

improve the status of the Gorge strata, even if the TRT’s criteria for those strata were not 

 43 In February 2006, NMFS approved the December 2004 version of the Washington management unit plan 

as an interim regional recovery plan for Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon and steelhead and 

Columbia River chum salmon. In May 2010, the LCFRB completed a revision of its 2004 plan (LCFRB 2010a), 

which is incorporated into this ESU-level recovery plan as Appendix B.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-37

met. The TRT also noted that targeting the Cascade stratum for above the minimum TRT 

criteria would help lower ESU extinction risk. In addition, the TRT noted that the Gorge 

and Cascade strata are relatively similar compared to the Cascade and Coast strata. Also 

significant in the TRT’s view was that options for recovery of the Gorge stratum would 

be preserved, in case future conditions or analyses were to require high stratum 

persistence for ESU viability (McElhany et al. 2006, p. 9). 

Based on the information provided by the WLC TRT and the management unit recovery 

planners, NMFS concludes that the recovery scenarios in Table 3-1 and the associated 

population-level abundance and productivity goals in Section 8.3 represent one of 

multiple possible scenarios that would meet biological criteria for delisting. The 

similarities between the Gorge and Cascade strata, coupled with compensation in the 

Cascade stratum for not meeting TRT criteria in the Gorge stratum, would provide an 

ESU no longer likely to become endangered. NMFS endorses the recovery scenario and 

population-level goals found in the management unit plans for Columbia River chum 

salmon (summarized in Table 3-1 and Section 8.3) as one of multiple possible scenarios 

consistent with delisting. As noted earlier in this chapter (see Section 8.3), Oregon did 

not identify abundance targets for chum salmon populations because data for use in 

calculating abundance targets and conservation gaps are not available. In this plan (see 

Table 8-2), NMFS has included placeholder abundance targets for Oregon chum salmon 

populations based on the minimum abundance thresholds presented in McElhany et al. 

(2006 and 2007). NMFS expects that these targets will be refined over time as more 

information becomes available. 

NMFS also agrees with the management unit planners that the historical role of the 

Gorge populations and stratum merits further examination. The extent to which 

compensation in the Cascade stratum is ultimately considered necessary to achieve an 

acceptably low risk at the ESU level will depend on how questions regarding the 

historical role of the Gorge populations are resolved.

NMFS therefore has developed the following biological criteria for the Columbia River 

chum salmon ESU (NMFS has amended the WLC TRT’s criteria to incorporate the 

concept that each stratum should have a probability of persistence consistent with its 

historical condition, thus allowing for resolution of questions regarding the Gorge 

stratum):

1. All strata that historically existed have a high probability of persistence or have a 

probability of persistence consistent with their historical condition. High 

probability of stratum persistence is defined as: 

a. At least two populations in the stratum have at least a 95 percent probability 

of persistence over a 100-year time frame (i.e., two populations with a score 

of 3.0 or higher based on the TRT’s scoring system). 

b. Other populations in the stratum have persistence probabilities consistent 

with a high probability of stratum persistence (i.e., the average of all stratum 

population scores is 2.25 or higher, based on the TRT’s scoring system). (See 

Section 2.6 for a brief discussion of the TRT’s scoring system.) 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

8-38

c. Populations targeted for a high probability of persistence are distributed in a 

way that minimizes risk from catastrophic events, maintains migratory 

connections among populations, and protects within-stratum diversity.

A probability of persistence consistent with historical condition refers to the 

concept that strata that historically were small or had complex population 

structures may not have met Criteria A through C, above, but could still be 

considered sufficiently viable if they provide a contribution to overall ESU 

viability similar to their historical contribution.

2. The threats criteria described in Section 3.2.2 have been met.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-1

9. Lower Columbia River Steelhead

9.1 Steelhead Biological Background

9.1.1 Steelhead Life History and Habitat

Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exhibit perhaps the most 

complex life history of any Pacific salmonid. These fish can be anadromous or 

freshwater residents (and under some circumstances, apparently yield offspring of the 

opposite form). Steelhead, the anadromous form of O. mykiss, are under the jurisdiction 

of NMFS, while the resident freshwater forms, usually called “rainbow” or “redband” 

trout, are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Steelhead are 

iteroparous, meaning they can spawn more than once. Repeat spawners are 

called “kelts.”

Two distinct life history types of steelhead—summer and winter runs—historically were 

and currently are found in the lower Columbia River. The two life history types differ in 

degree of sexual maturity at freshwater entry, spawning time, and frequency of repeat 

spawning. Most summer-run steelhead from the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS 

re-enter freshwater between May and October and require several months to mature 

before spawning, generally between late February and early April. Most winter-run 

steelhead re-enter freshwater between December and May as sexually mature fish; peak 

spawning occurs later than for summer steelhead, in late April and early May. (See 

Figures 9-1 and 9-2.) Iteroparity (repeat spawning) rates for Columbia Basin steelhead 

have been reported as high as 2 to 6 percent for summer steelhead and 8 to 17 percent 

for winter steelhead populations (Leider et al. 1986, Hulett et al. 1993, and Busby et 

al. 1996).

Within the same watershed, winter and summer steelhead generally spawn in 

geographically distinct areas (Myers et al. 2006). Summer steelhead can often reach 

headwater areas above waterfalls that are impassable to winter steelhead during the 

high-velocity flows common during the winter-run migration. In basins where both 

winter and summer steelhead are present, the summer life history strategy appears to be 

able to persist only above the barrier falls that exclude winter steelhead. Although the 

summer steelhead’s long duration of pre-spawning holding in freshwater enhances their 

opportunity to take advantage of periodically favorable passage conditions, it may also 

result in a higher pre-spawning mortality rate that puts summer steelhead at a 

competitive disadvantage relative to winter steelhead (Myers et al. 2006). Historically, 

winter steelhead may have been excluded from interior Columbia River subbasins by 

Celilo Falls. 

Steelhead spawn in a wide range of conditions ranging from large streams and rivers to 

small streams and side channels (Myers et al. 2006). Productive steelhead habitat is 

characterized by suitable gravel size, depth, and water velocity, and by complexity, 

primarily in the form of large and small wood (Barnhart 1986). Steelhead may enter 

streams and arrive at spawning grounds weeks or even months before spawning and 

therefore are vulnerable to disturbance and predation. They need cover in the form of 

overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, submerged vegetation, submerged objects 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-2

such as logs and rocks, floating debris, deep water, turbulence, and turbidity (Geiger 

1973). Their spawning timing must optimize avoiding risks from gravel-bed scour 

during high flow and increasing water temperatures that can become lethal to eggs. 

Spawning generally occurs earlier in areas of lower elevation, where water temperature 

is warmer, than in areas of higher elevation, with cooler water temperature. 

Depending on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate for 35 to 50 days before 

hatching, after which alevins remain in the gravel 2 to 3 weeks, until the yolk-sac is 

absorbed. Generally, emergence occurs from March into July, with peak emergence time 

generally in April and May. Fry emergence is principally determined by the time of egg 

deposition and the water temperature during the incubation period. In the Lower 

Columbia subdomain, emergence timing differs slightly between winter and summer 

life-history types and among subbasins. These differences may be a function of 

spawning location (and hence water temperature) or of genetic differences between lifehistory types. 

Following emergence, fry usually move into shallow and slow-moving margins of the 

stream. As they grow, they inhabit areas with deeper water, a wider range of velocities, 

and larger substrate, and they may move downstream to rear in large tributaries or 

mainstem rivers. Young steelhead typically rear in streams for some time before 

migrating to the ocean as smolts. Steelhead smolts generally migrate at ages ranging 

from 1 to 4 years, but most steelhead smolt after 2 years in freshwater (Busby et al. 1996). 

In the lower Columbia River, outmigration of steelhead smolts (of both summer and 

winter life-history types) generally occurs from March to June, with peak migration 

usually in April or May. 

Catch data suggest that juvenile steelhead migrate directly offshore during their first 

summer, rather than migrating nearer to the coast. Maturing Columbia River steelhead 

are found off the coast of Northern British Columbia and west into the North Pacific 

Ocean (Busby et al. 1996). Fin-mark and coded-wire tag data suggest that winter 

steelhead tend to migrate farther offshore but not as far north into the Gulf of Alaska as 

summer steelhead (Burgner et al. 1992). Most steelhead spend 2 years in the ocean 

(range 1 to 4 years) before migrating back to their natal streams (Shapovalov and Taft 

1954, Narver 1969, Ward and Slaney 1988). Once in the river, adult steelhead apparently 

rarely eat and grow little, if at all. 

The key freshwater habitat needs of Lower Columbia River steelhead at different life 

stages are shown in Table 9-1. Steelhead typically rear in a wider range of stream 

gradients and average velocities than do other salmon species.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-3

Table 9-1

Key Habitat for Steelhead, by Life Stage 

Life Stage Key Habitat Descriptions

Spawning Riffles, tailouts, and glides containing a mixture of gravel and cobble sizes with 

flow of sufficient depth for spawning activity

Incubation As for spawning, but with sufficient flow for egg and alevin development

Fry Colonization Shallow, slow-velocity areas within the stream channel, often associated with 

stream margins 

Active Rearing Gravel and cobble substrates with sufficient depth and velocity, and 

boulder/large cobble/wood obstruction to reduce flow and concentrate food

Inactive Rearing Stable cobble/boulder substrates with interstitial spaces

Migrant All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of juvenile migrants

Pre-Spawning Migrant All habitat types having sufficient flow for free movement of sexually mature 

adult migrants

Pre-Spawning Holding Relatively slow, deep-water habitat types (with cool temperatures), typically 

associated with (or immediately adjacent to) the main channel

Source: Adapted from Northwest Power and Conservation Council (2004b).

Figure 9-1. Life Cycle of LCR Summer Steelhead

(Source: LCFRB 2010a)
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-4

Figure 9-2. Life Cycle of Winter Steelhead

(Source: LCFRB 2010a)

9.1.2 Historical Distribution and Population Structure of LCR Steelhead

The WLC TRT identified 23 historical independent populations of Lower Columbia 

River steelhead: 17 winter-run populations and six summer-run populations, within the 

Cascade and Gorge ecozones. 1 Table 9-2 lists these populations and indicates core 

populations (which historically were highly productive) and genetic legacy populations 

(which represent important historical genetic diversity). Figures 9-3 and 9-4 show the 

geographical distribution of Lower Columbia River steelhead strata and populations. 

 1 Steelhead populations within the Coast ecozone are part of a separate DPS—the unlisted Southwest 

Washington DPS—and are not addressed in this recovery plan; however, they are addressed in the Oregon 

and Washington management unit plans to address state planning needs. The White Salmon and Little 

White Salmon steelhead populations are part of the Middle Columbia steelhead DPS and are addressed in a 

separate species-level recovery plan, the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA 

Recovery Plan (NMFS 2009a). However, recovery actions for the White Salmon population of Mid-Columbia 

steelhead are included in the White Salmon management unit plan (ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon 

River Watershed, NMFS 2013; see Appendix C of this recovery plan) because this population shares 

geography with Lower Columbia River coho and Chinook salmon and Columbia River chum in the White 

Salmon subbasin.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-5

Table 9-2

Historical LCR Steelhead Populations

Stratum Historical Populations Core or Genetic Legacy Populations

Cascade summer Kalama (WA) Core

NF Lewis (WA)

EF Lewis (WA) Genetic legacy

Washougal (WA) Core, genetic legacy

Gorge summer Wind (WA) Core

Hood (OR)

Cascade winter Lower Cowlitz (WA)

Upper Cowlitz (WA) Core, genetic legacy

Cispus (WA) Core, genetic legacy

Tilton (WA)

SF Toutle (WA)

NF Toutle (WA) Core

Coweeman (WA)

Kalama (WA)

NF Lewis (WA) Core

EF Lewis (WA)

Salmon Creek (WA)

Clackamas (OR) Core

Sandy (OR) Core

Washougal (WA)

Gorge winter Lower Gorge (WA and OR)

Upper Gorge (WA and OR)

Hood (OR) Core, genetic legacy

Source: Myers et al. (2006), McElhany et al. (2003). 

Up through 2006, ten artificial propagation programs produced steelhead considered to 

be part of this DPS. In 2007, the release of Cowlitz Hatchery winter steelhead into the 

Tilton River was discontinued; in 2009, the Hood River winter steelhead program was 

discontinued; and in 2010, the release of hatchery winter steelhead into the Upper 

Cowlitz and Cispus rivers was discontinued. In 2011, NMFS recommended removing 

these programs from the DPS. A Lewis River winter steelhead program was initiated in 

2009, and in 2011, NMFS proposed that it be included in the DPS (76 Federal Register

50448). Table 9-3 shows the eight steelhead hatchery programs that currently are 

included in the DPS. For a list of steelhead hatchery programs not included in the DPS, 

see Jones (2011). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-6

Table 9-3

Artificial Propagation Programs Included in the LCR Steelhead DPS

Run Type Washington Programs Oregon Programs

Summer steelhead Kalama River Wild Hood River*

Winter steelhead Cowtliz Trout Hatchery - Lower Cowlitz

Kalama River Wild

Lewis River Wild late-run

Clackamas Hatchery

Sandy Hatchery

Hood River

* The wild summer broodstock program (ODFW stock #50) has been suspended and the non-local summer 

steelhead program (Skamania stock) terminated.

Source: 71 Federal Register 8844, 76 Federal Register 50448, and Jones (2011).

9.2 Baseline Population Status of LCR Steelhead

Out of the 23 populations in this DPS, 16 are considered to have a low or very low 

probability of persisting over the next 100 years (see Table 9-4), and six populations have 

a moderate probability of persistence (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010, Ford 2011).2 Only the 

summer-run Wind population is considered viable. Although current Lower Columbia 

River steelhead populations are depressed compared to historical levels and long-term 

trends show declines, many populations are substantially healthier than their salmon 

counterparts, typically because of better habitat conditions in core steelhead production 

areas (LCFRB 2010a). However, all four strata in the DPS fall short of the WLC TRT 

criteria for viability. 

The low to very low baseline persistence probabilities of most Lower Columbia River 

steelhead populations reflects low abundance and productivity. In addition, it is likely 

that genetic and life history diversity has been reduced as a result of pervasive hatchery 

effects and population bottlenecks. Spatial structure remains relatively high for most 

populations (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). 

9.2.1 Baseline Status of LCR Summer Steelhead

Baseline persistence probabilities were estimated to be low or very low for three out of 

the six summer steelhead populations that are part of the Lower Columbia River DPS, 

moderate for two, and high for one—the Wind, which is considered viable (see Figure 9-

3) (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). 

 2 As described in Section 2.6, the WLC TRT recommended methods for evaluating the status of Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations. The TRT’s approach is based on evaluating the 

population parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity and then integrating 

those assessments into an overall assessment of population persistence probability. As described in Section 

5.1, management unit recovery planners evaluated their respective populations’ baseline status in a manner 

generally consistent with the WLC TRT’s approach, with the baseline period being either circa 1999 (for 

Washington populations) or 2006-2018 (for Oregon populations). Unless otherwise noted, NMFS and the 

management unit planners believe that those assessments accurately reflect the status of the population at 

that time; the assessments are the basis for the summaries presented here and are consistent with the 

conclusions of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in its Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and 

Steelhead Listed under the Endangered Species Act (Ford 2011). New information on population status will 

continue to accumulate over time and will be taken into account as needed to reflect the best available 

science regarding a population’s status.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-7

Declines in persistence probability are attributable primarily to low abundance and 

productivity. Except in the North Fork Lewis subbasin, where dams have impeded 

access to historical spawning habitat, most summer steelhead populations continue to 

have access to historical production areas in forested, mid- to-high-elevation subbasins 

that remain largely intact. It is likely that historical hatchery effects have reduced the 

genetic diversity of many summer steelhead populations and caused declines in 

productivity (LCFRB 2010a). The Hood population has the highest proportion of 

hatchery spawners, at 53 percent (ODFW 2010). The highest pHOS rate among the 

Washington populations is 35 percent, for the East Fork Lewis (LCFRB 2010a). 

9.2.2 Baseline Status of LCR Winter Steelhead

Thirteen of the 17 Lower Columbia River winter steelhead populations have low or very 

low baseline probabilities of persistence, and the remaining four are at moderate 

probability of persistence (see Figure 9-4) (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). 

Declines in persistence probability are related primarily to low abundance and 

productivity. In addition, it is likely that historical hatchery effects have reduced the 

genetic diversity of most winter steelhead populations and caused declines in 

productivity. Most populations have maintained their spatial structure, meaning that 

returning adults can access most areas of significant historical habitat (although many of 

these habitats no longer support significant production) (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). 

For the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, North Fork Lewis, and Sandy populations, 

passage to upper basin habitat is partially or entirely blocked by dams (LCFRB 2010a; 

ODFW 2010); the Upper Gorge population is constrained by hatchery weirs, and the 

Hood population is constrained by the presence and operation of an irrigation dam. 

Steelhead distribution has been partially restored in the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and 

Tilton subbasin by trapping and transferring adults and juveniles around impassable 

dams.

For additional discussion of Lower Columbia River steelhead population status, see the 

management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, pp. 6-57 through 6-52, and ODFW 2010, pp. 55-

56) and Ford (2011).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-8

Figure 9-3. Baseline Status of LCR Summer Steelhead Populations
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-9

Figure 9-4. Baseline Status of LCR Winter Steelhead Populations

9.3 Target Status and Conservation Gaps for 

Steelhead Populations

Table 9-4 shows the baseline and target status for each Lower Columbia River steelhead 

population, along with historical abundance and target abundance. Local recovery 

planners coordinated with NMFS in making decisions about the target status for each 

population, taking into consideration opportunities for improvement in view of 

historical production, current habitat conditions and potential, and the desire to 

accommodate objectives such as maintaining harvest opportunities. (Note: the target 

statuses in Table 9-4 are the same as the persistence probabilities in the recovery scenario 

presented in Table 3-1 in Section 3.13.) As described in Section 5.1, although Oregon and 

Washington recovery planners used somewhat different methodologies to estimate 

baseline status and target abundance and productivity NMFS and the management unit 

planners agree that the methodologies led to similar conclusions regarding the baseline 

status for Lower Columbia River steelhead populations.

Substantial improvements are needed in the persistence probability of most steelhead 

populations if the DPS is to achieve recovery (see Figures 9-5 and 9-6). For example, 

16 (11 winter and five summer) of 23 historical populations are targeted for high 

persistence probability or better. Of these, seven of the 17 historical winter-run 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-10

populations and two of the six historical summer-run populations have very low or low 

baseline persistence probabilities. Some level of recovery effort will be needed for every 

population—even stabilizing populations that are expected to remain at their baseline 

status—to arrest or reverse continuing long-term declining trends. For most 

populations, meeting recovery objectives will require improvement in abundance, 

productivity, and diversity; several populations will also require improvements in 

spatial structure.

In the Cascade summer steelhead stratum, three of four populations are targeted for 

high persistence probability. These include the Kalama and Washougal, both large, 

productive populations historically. Today abundance and productivity in the Kalama 

population are high, but improvements are needed in spatial structure and diversity. 

Only one summer steelhead population—the North Fork Lewis—is expected to remain 

at its baseline status of very low persistence probability; this is because of loss of habitat 

access related to Merwin Dam, ongoing hatchery programs that produce summer 

steelhead for harvest, and the desire not to interfere with winter steelhead recovery 

efforts in the upper North Fork Lewis. 

Both populations in the Gorge summer steelhead stratum are designated primary. The 

Wind population has a high baseline persistence probability and is targeted for very 

high persistence. The Hood population is targeted to move from very low to high 

probability of persistence; however, Oregon notes that achieving this target is unlikely 

(ODFW 2010). Challenges include the small amount of historical and current habitat 

(and thus the limited options for restoration), anthropogenic impacts that are unlikely to 

change in the near future (e.g., inundation of historical habitat by Bonneville Reservoir 

and roads that restrict access to habitat), and high uncertainty in the data and analyses 

for small populations.3 The Oregon management unit plan states that most of these 

issues are related to the population structure designation and suggests re-evaluating the 

Gorge stratum population structure for all species (ODFW 2010). As discussed in 

Chapter 3, NMFS agrees that such an evaluation is needed. 

In the Cascade winter steelhead stratum, nine of 14 historical populations are targeted 

for high or better persistence probability. These include the two genetic legacy 

populations and five of six core populations (those that were historically the most 

productive). One of these, the Clackamas population, is targeted to move from medium 

to high persistence probability, but Oregon notes that achieving this target status is 

unlikely because the level of tributary habitat improvement needed is considered 

infeasible (ODFW 2010). The sixth core population in this stratum, the North Fork 

Lewis, is targeted for medium persistence probability. In this stratum, only Salmon 

Creek, in a highly urbanized subbasin, is expected to remain at its baseline persistence 

probability of very low. 

Of the three populations in the Gorge winter steelhead stratum, two—the Lower Gorge 

and the Hood (which is both a core and a genetic legacy population)—are targeted for 

 3 In the method used by the WLC TRT and management unit planners to establish abundance goals, target 

abundance is based to some extent on the gap between current and historical abundance. If the historical 

abundance of Gorge stratum steelhead populations has been significantly overestimated, then the 

abundance needed to achieve their target status may also be overestimated (ODFW 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-11

high persistence probability. The third, the Upper Gorge, is designated as stabilizing and 

is expected to remain at its low baseline status because of questions about the historical 

role of the population and current habitat potential. 

If the scenario in Table 9-4 were achieved, it would meet or exceed the WLC TRT’s 

viability criteria, particularly in the Cascade winter stratum but also in the Cascade 

summer stratum.4 Exceeding the criteria in the Cascade strata was intentional on the 

part of local recovery planners to compensate for uncertainties about the feasibility of 

meeting the WLC TRT’s criteria in the Gorge summer stratum.5 (Delisting criteria for the 

Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS are described in Sections 3.2 and Section 9.7.)

Figures 9-5 and 9-6 display the population-level conservation gaps for Lower Columbia 

River steelhead graphically. The conservation gap reflects the magnitude of 

improvement needed to move a population from its baseline status to the target status. 

For additional discussion of status targets and conservation gaps for Lower Columbia 

River steelhead populations, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 2010a, pp. 6-62 

through 6-64 and ODFW 2010 pp. 148-150). 

 4 As discussed in Section 2.5.4, the TRT’s criteria for high probability of stratum persistence require that two 

or more populations be viable and that the average score for all populations in the stratum be 2.25 or higher. 

In the Cascade winter stratum, nine populations are targeted for high or very high persistence probability, 

and, using the WLC TRT’s scoring system, the average viability score for all populations in the stratum 

would be 2.61. 

5 As noted in the discussion above, the Oregon management unit plan stated that achieving the target of 

high persistence probability for the Clackamas winter population is unlikely because the level of tributary 

habitat improvement needed is unfeasible. Even if the Clackamas population remained at its baseline status 

of medium probability of persistence, the Cascade winter steelhead stratum could still meet the WLC TRT’s 

viability criteria for high probability of persistence, assuming adequate improvements in the persistence 

probability of the other populations in the stratum.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-12

Table 9-4

Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR Steelhead Populations

Baseline Persistence

Probability6 Abundance

Stratum Population Contribution A&P S D Net

Target 

Persistence 

Probability

Historical Baseline7 Target

Cascade Kalama (WA) C Primary H VH M M H 1,000 500 500

summer NF Lewis (WA) Stabilizing VL VL VL VL VL --

8 150 --

EF Lewis (WA) Primary VL VH M VL H 600 < 50 500

Washougal (WA) C Primary M VH M M H 2,200 400 500

Gorge Wind (WA) C Primary VH VH H H VH -- 1,000 1,000

summer Hood (OR) Primary VL VH L VL H* 3,822 35 2,008

Lower Cowlitz (WA) Contributing L M M L M 1,400 350 400

Upper Cowlitz (WA) C, GL Primary VL M M VL H 1,400 < 50 500

Cispus (WA) C, GL Primary VL M M VL H 1,500 < 50 500

Tilton (WA) Contributing VL M M VL L 1,700 < 50 200

SF Toutle (WA) Primary M VH H M H+ 350 600

NF Toutle (WA) C Primary VL H H VL H 3,600 120 600

Coweeman (WA) Primary L VH VH L H 900 350 500

Kalama (WA) Primary L VH H L H+ 800 300 600

NF Lewis (WA) C Contributing VL M M VL M 8,800 150 400

Cascade 

winter

EF Lewis (WA) Primary M VH M M H 900 350 500

 6 A&P = Abundance and productivity, S = spatial structure, and D = genetic and life history diversity. Net = overall persistence probability of the population. VL = 

very low, L = low, M = moderate, H = high, VH = very high.

7 Baseline abundance was estimated as described in Section 5.1 and does not equal observed natural-origin spawner counts. The baseline is a modeled abundance 

that represents 100-year forward projections under conditions representative of a recent baseline period using a population viability analysis that is functionally 

equivalent to the risk analyses in McElhany et al. (2007). Projections generally assume conditions similar to those from 1974 to 2004. Oregon numbers reflect 

fishery reductions between the 1990s and about 2004, while Washington numbers reflect fishery impacts prevalent in the period immediately prior to listing in 

1999.

8 “—“ indicates that no data are available from which to make a quantitative assessment.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-13

Table 9-4

Baseline and Target Persistence Probability and Abundance of LCR Steelhead Populations

Baseline Persistence

Probability6 Abundance

Stratum Population Contribution A&P S D Net

Target 

Persistence 

Probability

Historical Baseline7 Target

Salmon Creek (WA) Stabilizing VL H M VL VL -- < 50 --

Clackamas (OR) C Primary M VH M M H* 21,186 3,897 10,671

Sandy (OR) C Primary L M M L VH 11,687 674 1,519

Washougal (WA) Contributing L VH M L M 800 300 350

L. Gorge (OR & WA) Primary L VH M L H -- 200 300

U. Gorge (OR & WA) Stabilizing L M M L L -- 200 --

Gorge

winter 

Hood (OR) C, GL Primary M VH M M H 3,822 1,127 2,079

C = Core populations, meaning those that historically were the most productive.

G = Genetic legacy populations, which best represent historical genetic diversity.

*Oregon’s analysis indicates a low probability of meeting the delisting objective of high persistence probability for this population.

Source: LCFRB (2010a) and ODFW (2010).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-14

Figure 9-5. Conservation Gaps for LCR Winter Steelhead Populations: Difference between 

Baseline and Target Status

Source: LCFRB 2010a.

Figure 9-6. Conservation Gaps for LCR Summer Steelhead Populations: Difference between 

Baseline and Target Status

Source: LCFRB 2010a.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-15

9.4 Limiting Factors and Threats for LCR Steelhead 

Lower Columbia River steelhead are affected by a legacy of habitat degradation, harvest, 

hatchery production, and hydropower development that together have reduced the 

persistence probability of almost every population. Historically, high harvest rates 

contributed to population depletions, while stock transfers and straying of hatcheryorigin fish reduced productivity and genetic and life history diversity. Construction of 

tributary and mainstem dams has constrained the spatial structure of some steelhead 

populations by blocking or impairing access to historical spawning areas. Over time, 

population abundance and productivity have been reduced through habitat alterations. 

Habitat alterations in the Columbia River estuary also have contributed to increased 

predation on steelhead juveniles. Today, widespread habitat degradation, predation, 

and the lingering effects of hatchery-origin fish continue to be significant limiting factors 

for most steelhead populations. 

Tables 9-5 and 9-6 and the text that follows summarize baseline limiting factors and 

threats for Lower Columbia River steelhead strata based on population-specific limiting 

factors and threats identified in the management unit plans. In cases where conditions 

have changed significantly since the management unit plans’ analyses of limiting factors 

and threats (e.g., if harvest rates have dropped or a dam is no longer present), this is 

noted in the text. Unless otherwise noted, NMFS agrees that the management unit plans’ 

identification of limiting factors provide a credible hypothesis for understanding 

population performance and identifying management actions. 

Because the individual management unit plans used somewhat different terms in 

identifying limiting factors, NMFS has translated those terms into standardized and 

more general terminology taken from a NMFS “data dictionary” of possible ecological 

concerns that could affect salmon and steelhead (Hamm 2012; see Section 5.4). In 

addition, in Tables 9-5 and 9-6, NMFS has rolled up the population-specific limiting 

factors (see Appendix H) to the stratum level—a process that has resulted in some loss 

of specificity. 

In addition, each management unit plan used a different approach for identifying 

limiting factors and threats (see Section 5.3). One difference relevant to the crosswalk is 

that while the Oregon management unit plan identified primary and secondary limiting 

factors for each population in each threat category,9 the Washington management unit 

plan categorized limiting factors in this way only for habitat-related limiting factors, and 

the estuary module did not use the primary and secondary terminology. For the 

crosswalk and this table, NMFS assigned primary and secondary status to non-habitat 

limiting factors for Washington populations (based on the Washington management 

unit plan’s quantification of threat impacts and the professional judgment of Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s staff and consultants). It is likely that some apparent 

distinctions in results between Washington and Oregon populations are artifacts of 

differences in limiting factor assessment methodologies and not an actual difference in 

conditions or their effects on salmon and steelhead populations. In addition, there is not 

necessarily a bright line between primary and secondary limiting factor designations. 

 9 In the Oregon management unit plan, primary limiting factors are those that have the greatest impact and 

secondary limiting factors have a lesser but still significant impact.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-16

Nevertheless, NMFS believes that the designations are useful, particularly for looking 

across ESUs and populations and identifying patterns (see Chapter 4).

The management unit plans provide more detail on limiting factors and threats affecting 

each Lower Columbia River steelhead population, including magnitude, spatial scale, 

and relative impact (see LCFRB 2010a, Chapter 3 and various sections of Volume II, and 

ODFW 2010, pp. 129-140). For a regional perspective on limiting factors and threats that 

affect multiple salmon and steelhead ESUs, see Chapter 4 of this recovery plan. For a 

description of the data dictionary, the approach NMFS used to correlate management 

unit terms for limiting factors with the standardized NMFS terminology at the 

population scale, and the approach for rolling up from the population to the stratum 

scale, see Section 5.4 and Appendix H.

Management unit recovery planners in Oregon and Washington recognized that six 

major categories of manageable threats—tributary habitat, estuary habitat, hydropower, 

harvest, hatcheries, and predation—were useful as an organizing construct for grouping 

limiting factors, quantifying impacts on population productivity, and determining how 

much different categories of threats would need to be reduced to close the gap between 

baseline and target population status. Planners in both Washington and Oregon 

quantified the impacts of each of these major threat categories on population status, 

along with a reduction in each impact that would be consistent with achieving 

population target status. The results of that analysis are presented in Section 9.5 and 

provide a related but slightly different perspective on limiting factors. The threat 

reduction targets also allow actions to be scaled to achieve a specific impact reduction, 

and to be linked to monitoring and performance benchmarks.

Table 9-5 

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Winter Steelhead: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Winter Gorge Winter

Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Riparian Condition Past and/or current 

land use practices All

Secondary for North 

Fork Lewis 

juveniles; primary for 

juveniles in all other 

populations

Primary for Upper and 

Lower Gorge adults and 

juveniles; secondary for 

Hood juveniles 

Channel Structure and 

Form

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All

Secondary for North 

Fork Lewis 

juveniles; primary for 

juveniles in all 

remaining 

populations

Primary for Upper and 

Lower Gorge adults and 

juveniles; secondary for 

Hood juveniles 

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Side Channel and 

Wetland Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All

Secondary for North 

Fork Lewis 

juveniles; primary for 

juveniles in all other 

populations

Primary for Upper and 

Lower Gorge adults and 

juveniles; secondary for 

Hood juveniles 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-17

Table 9-5 

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Winter Steelhead: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Winter Gorge Winter

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Floodplain Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All

Secondary for North 

Fork Lewis 

juveniles; primary for 

juveniles in all 

remaining 

populations

Primary for Upper and 

Lower Gorge adults and 

juveniles; secondary for 

Hood juveniles 

Sediment Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation 

corridor 

All

Secondary for 

Clackamas, Upper 

Cowlitz and Cispus 

juveniles; secondary 

for Sandy adults and 

juveniles; primary for 

juveniles in all other 

WA populations

Secondary for Hood 

juveniles

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that 

impair riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dams

A,P,D

Secondary for OR, 

Upper Cowlitz and 

Cispus juveniles;

primary for juveniles 

in all other WA 

populations

Secondary for Hood 

juveniles

Water Quantity (Flow)

Dams, land use, 

water withdrawals 

for irrigation, 

municipal uses, and 

hatchery operations

All

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations 

Secondary for juveniles 

in all populations, 

primary for Hood 

juveniles (irrigation 

withdrawals)

Toxic Contaminants

Agricultural 

chemicals, urban 

and industrial 

practices

A,P,D Secondary for Hood 

juveniles

Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors10

Toxic Contaminants

Agricultural 

chemicals, urban 

and industrial 

practices

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

 10 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the DPS, the estuarine limiting factors in this table and Section 9.4.2 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River steelhead 

populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine limiting 

factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly revised) 

through adaptive management.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-18

Table 9-5 

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Winter Steelhead: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Winter Gorge Winter

Food11

(Shift from macrodetritalto microdetrital-based 

food web)

Dam reservoirs All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Estuary Condition 

Past and/or current 

land use practices, 

transportation 

corridor, mainstem 

dams

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Channel Structure and 

Form

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation 

corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Sediment Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use 

practices/transporta

tion corridor, dams

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that 

impair riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dam 

reservoirs

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quantity (Flow) Columbia River 

mainstem dams All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Hydropower Limiting Factors

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Bonneville Dam All

Secondary for Upper 

Gorge and Hood adults 

and juveniles

Habitat Quantity 

(Inundation) Bonneville Dam All

Secondary for Upper 

Gorge and Hood

juveniles

12

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Tributary Dams All

Primary for Upper 

Cowlitz, North Fork

Lewis, Cispus, and 

Tilton adults and 

juveniles; secondary 

for Clackamas 

juveniles; secondary 

for Sandy adults

Secondary for Hood 

juveniles

Harvest Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Fisheries A,D Secondary for adults in all populations

 11 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 

12 The exact extent to which Bonneville Reservoir inundated habitats for any species is unknown. Some 

biologists have hypothesized impacts to spring Chinook salmon as a result of inundation. Based on 

spawning habitat preferences, it is likely that impacts of inundation were greatest on fall Chinook and chum 

salmon.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-19

Table 9-5 

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Winter Steelhead: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Winter Gorge Winter

Hatchery Limiting Factors

Food13

Smolts from all 

Columbia Basin 

hatcheries 

competing for food 

and space in the 

estuary

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Population Diversity

Stray hatchery fish 

interbreeding with 

wild fish

A,P,D

Primary for Upper 

and Lower Cowlitz, 

Cispus, Tilton, 

Lewis, Salmon 

Creek, and Sandy 

adults; secondary 

for adults in all other 

populations

Secondary for adults in 

all populations

Predation Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Land use A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Direct Mortality Dams A,P,D

Secondary for Upper 

Gorge and Hood adults 

and juveniles

Table 9-6 

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Summer Steelhead: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Summer Gorge Summer

Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Riparian Condition Past and/or current 

land use practices All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Channel Structure 

and Form

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Side Channel and 

Wetland Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

 13 Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia Basin hatcheries 

may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and habitat space in the estuary. NMFS 

(2013) and LCFRB (2010) identified competition for food and space among hatchery and natural-origin 

juveniles in the estuary as a critical uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed 

competition for food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define and describe the 

scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin 

salmon and steelhead in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore ocean habitats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-20

Table 9-6 

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Summer Steelhead: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Summer Gorge Summer

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Floodplain Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Sediment Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor 

All

Primary for Kalama, 

Washougal, and 

East Fork Lewis 

juveniles

Primary for Wind 

juveniles; secondary 

for Hood juveniles

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that impair 

riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dams

A,P,D

Primary for 

Washougal and East 

Fork Lewis juveniles

Primary for Wind 

juveniles; secondary 

for Hood juveniles

Water Quantity (Flow)

Dams, land use, 

irrigation, municipal, 

and hatchery 

withdrawals

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations 

except North Fork Lewis

Toxic Contaminants

Agricultural 

chemicals, urban and 

industrial practices

A,P,D Secondary for Hood 

juveniles

Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors14

Toxic Contaminants

Agricultural 

chemicals, urban and 

industrial practices

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations 

Food15

(Shift from 

macrodetrital- to 

microdetrital-based 

food web)

Dam reservoirs All Secondary for juveniles in all populations 

Peripheral and 

Transitional Habitats: 

Estuary Condition 

Past and/or current 

land use 

practices/transportatio

n corridor, mainstem 

dams

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations 

Channel Structure 

and Form

Past and/or current 

land use practices/ 

transportation corridor

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations 

 14 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the DPS, the estuarine limiting factors in this table and Section 9.4.2 reflect the 

determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River steelhead 

populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine limiting 

factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly revised) 

through adaptive management.

15 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-21

Table 9-6 

Baseline Limiting Factors and Threats Affecting LCR Summer Steelhead: StratumLevel Summary

Ecological Concern Threat(s)

VSP 

Parameters 

Affected

Cascade Summer Gorge Summer

Sediment Conditions

Past and/or current 

land use 

practices/transportatio

n corridor, dams

All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quality 

(Temperature)

Land uses that impair 

riparian 

function/decrease 

streamflow, dam 

reservoirs

A,P,D Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Water Quantity (Flow) Columbia River 

mainstem dams All Primary for juveniles in all populations

Hydropower Limiting Factors

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Bonneville Dam All

Secondary for Wind 

and Hood adults and 

juveniles

Habitat Quantity 

(Inundation) Bonneville Dam All Secondary for Hood and Wind juveniles

16

Habitat Quantity

(Access) Tributary dams All

Primary for North 

Fork Lewis adults 

and juveniles

Secondary for Hood 

adults and juveniles

Harvest Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Fisheries A,D Secondary for adults in all populations

Hatchery Limiting Factors

Food17

Smolts from all 

Columbia Basin 

hatcheries

All Secondary for juveniles in all populations

Population Diversity

Stray hatchery fish 

interbreeding with wild 

fish

A,P,D

Primary for North 

Fork Lewis adults; 

secondary for East 

Fork Lewis and 

Washougal adults

Primary for Hood 

adults

Predation Limiting Factors

Direct Mortality Land use A,P,D

Secondary for 

juveniles in all 

populations 

Secondary for Hood 

juveniles

Direct Mortality Dams A,P,D Secondary for Hood 

adults and juveniles

 16 The exact extent to which Bonneville Reservoir inundated habitats for any species is unknown. Some 

biologists have hypothesized impacts to spring Chinook salmon as a result of inundation. Based on 

spawning habitat preferences, it is likely that impacts of inundation were greatest on fall Chinook and chum 

salmon.

17 Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia Basin hatcheries 

may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and habitat space in the estuary. NMFS 

(2011a) and LCFRB (2010a) identified competition for food and space among hatchery and natural-origin 

juveniles in the estuary as a critical uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed 

competition for food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define and describe the 

scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin 

salmon and steelhead in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore ocean habitats. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-22

9.4.1 Tributary Habitat Limiting Factors

Because steelhead are stream-type fish that typically rear in tributary reaches for a year 

or more, they depend heavily on tributary habitat conditions for their early survival 

(LCFRB 2010a). Loss and degradation of tributary habitat is one of the main limiting 

factors for Lower Columbia River steelhead (see Tables 9-5 and 9-6). 

Impaired side channel and wetland conditions along with degraded floodplain habitat 

have significant negative impacts on juvenile steelhead throughout the DPS and are 

identified as primary limiting factors for all summer populations and all winter 

steelhead populations except the North Fork Lewis and Hood, where they are identified 

as secondary factors. In most cases, these limiting factors have resulted from extensive 

channelization, diking, wetland conversion, stream clearing, and gravel extraction, 

which have barred steelhead from historically productive habitats and simplified 

remaining habitats, weakening watershed processes that are essential to the 

maintenance of healthy ecosystems and reducing refugia and resting places. Degraded 

riparian conditions and channel structure and form issues are also primary limiting 

factors for juveniles of all summer steelhead populations and all winter populations 

except the North Fork Lewis and Hood, where these conditions are identified as 

secondary factors. A lack of large woody debris and appropriately sized gravel in the 

remaining accessible tributary habitat has significantly reduced the amount of suitable 

spawning and rearing habitat for winter steelhead. 

Sediment conditions are identified as a limiting factor for juveniles in all Cascade winter 

populations; for Kalama, Washougal, East Fork Lewis, Wind, and Hood summer 

steelhead juveniles; and for juveniles from the Hood winter population. The high 

density of unimproved rural roads throughout the area, as well as timber harvest 

practices and other land use patterns on unstable slopes adjacent to riparian habitat, 

contributes to an abundance of fine sediment in tributary streams. The resulting excess 

fine sediment increases turbidity and covers spawning gravel, limiting egg development 

and incubation. In addition, water quality—specifically, elevated water temperature 

brought about through land use practices and dam reservoirs—is a primary limiting 

factor for juveniles in the East Fork Lewis, Washougal, and Wind summer populations 

and juveniles in all Washington Cascade winter populations except the Upper Cowlitz 

and Cispus. Water temperature is a secondary factor for juveniles from the Clackamas 

and Sandy winter steelhead populations and Hood summer steelhead juveniles. The 

influence of dams, land use, low-head hydro diversions, and irrigation withdrawals has 

led to water quantity issues being identified as a secondary limiting factor for all 

populations except the North Fork Lewis. These water quantity issues are related to 

altered hydrology and flow timing.

In the Cascade ecozone, land uses that have led to the conditions that limit tributary 

habitat productivity include forest management and timber harvest, agriculture, rural 

residential and urban development, and gravel extraction. A mix of private, state, and 

federal forest land predominates in the upper mainstem and headwater tributaries of the 

Cascade subbasins, while the lower mainstem and tributary reaches of most subbasins 

are characterized by agricultural and rural residential land use, with some urban 

development, especially in the Salmon Creek and Clackamas subbasins. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-23

A unique issue in the Cascade stratum is legacy effects in the Toutle subbasin of the 1980

Mount St. Helens eruption. The North Fork Toutle in particular was heavily affected by 

sedimentation from the eruption. A sediment retention structure was constructed on the 

North Fork Toutle in an attempt to prevent continued severe sedimentation of stream 

channels and associated flood conveyance, transportation, and habitat degradation 

problems. The structure currently blocks access to as many as 50 miles of habitat for 

anadromous fish. Although fish are transported around the structure via a trap and haul 

system, it remains a source of chronic fine sediment to the lower river; this reduces

habitat quality and has interfered with fish collection at its base.

In the Gorge ecozone, habitat limiting factors are generally the same as those described 

for the DPS as a whole, with some exceptions. For example, sediment conditions and 

water quality were not identified as limiting factors for the Upper and Lower Gorge 

winter steelhead populations. In addition, the primary cause of impaired side channel, 

wetland, and floodplain conditions for these populations is transportation corridor 

development. Highway and transportation corridors run parallel to the Columbia River 

shoreline, traversing all creek drainages in ways that restrict access and disconnect 

upland and lowland habitat processes. For the Hood winter steelhead population, all 

tributary habitat limiting factors were secondary with the exception of reduced instream 

flow caused by irrigation withdrawals, which was identified as a primary limiting 

factor. For the Hood summer population, riparian conditions and impaired side channel, 

wetland, and floodplain habitat were identified as primary tributary limiting factors.

Also unique to the Hood populations, both winter and summer, was the identification of 

organophosphates, insecticides, and other agricultural chemicals as a secondary limiting 

factor for juveniles. In addition, inundation of historical habitat by Bonneville Reservoir 

is identified as a secondary limiting factor for Upper Gorge winter steelhead and both 

winter and summer Hood populations. 

9.4.2 Estuary Habitat Limiting Factors18

As stream-type fish, steelhead spend less time in the Columbia River estuary and plume 

than do ocean-type salmon such as fall Chinook, yet estuary habitat conditions 

nevertheless play an important role in the survival of steelhead juveniles, particularly 

those displaying less dominant life history strategies. Water quantity issues related to 

altered hydrology and flow timing are identified as a primary limiting factor for all 

populations, as is impaired sediment and sand routing; these limiting factors are 

associated with hydroregulation at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the 

 18 The Washington and Oregon management unit plans both relied on the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) for information on estuary limiting factors, but 

there were some differences in how the plans translated the information into limiting factors experienced at 

the population level. The estuary module does not designate limiting factors as primary or secondary; 

instead, it ranks them in terms of assumed impact on ocean- and stream-type salmonids. Because the 

Oregon management unit plan integrated the module information with more specificity than did the 

Washington management unit plan, and because NMFS assumes that estuarine limiting factors affect all 

populations equally within the DPS, the estuarine limiting factors in this section and Tables 9-5 and 9-6 

reflect the determinations in the Oregon management unit plan, applied to all Lower Columbia River 

steelhead populations, unless otherwise noted. As with other limiting factors, the designations of estuarine 

limiting factors as primary or secondary reflect working hypotheses that will need to be tested (and possibly 

revised) through adaptive management. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-24

Columbia Basin, and, in the case of sediment issues, land uses both past and present. 

Much of the land surrounding the Columbia River estuary is in agricultural or rural 

residential use and has been extensively modified via dikes, levees, bank stabilization, 

and tide gates. Altered hydrology and sediment routing influence habitat-forming 

processes, the quantity and accessibility of habitats such as side channels and wetlands, 

the dynamics of the Columbia River plume, and the estuarine food web. Channel 

structure issues, in the form of reduced habitat complexity and diversity, also are a 

primary limiting factor for juveniles from all populations. Again, simplification of 

channel structure is related to conversion of land to other uses—agricultural, rural 

residential, and as a transportation corridor.

Lack of access to peripheral and transitional habitats, such as side channels and 

wetlands is a secondary limiting factor for all populations, with access being impaired 

by the land uses—including the transportation corridor—and by flow alterations caused 

by mainstem dams. Other secondary limiting factors in the estuary that affect all 

steelhead populations are exposure to toxic contaminants (from urban, industrial, and 

agricultural sources) and elevated late summer and fall water temperatures, which are 

related to (1) land use practices that impair riparian function or decrease streamflow, 

and (2) large hydropower reservoirs.19 Altered food web dynamics involving a transition 

from a macrodetrital-based food web to a microdetrital-based food web also are 

considered a secondary limiting factor for all populations.20 These changes in the 

estuarine food web are caused primarily by increased microdetrital inputs from 

hydropower reservoirs and the loss of wetland habitats through diking and filling.

9.4.3 Hydropower Limiting Factors

The severity of dam-related impacts on winter steelhead populations varies throughout 

the DPS. Flow management operations at large storage reservoirs in the interior of the 

Columbia Basin (Grand Coulee, Dworshak, etc.) affect all juvenile Lower Columbia 

River steelhead in the lower mainstem and estuary, and potentially in the plume—

primarily by altering flow volume and timing. These alterations impair sediment 

routing, influence habitat-forming processes, reduce access to peripheral habitat, and 

change the dynamics of the Columbia River plume and estuarine food web (see Section

9.4.2).21 Moreover, the large reservoirs associated with mainstem dams contribute to 

elevated water temperatures downstream in late summer and fall. Although the 

management unit plans identified temperature impacts of the hydropower system as a 

secondary limiting factor for all juvenile steelhead, migration of juvenile steelhead 

occurs primarily in April through June (Dawley et al. 1986, McCabe et al. 1986, Roegner 

et al. 2004, Bottom et al. 2008, cited in Figure 2.2 of Carter et al. 2009), when elevated 

 19 Although the management unit plans identified temperature impacts as a secondary limiting factor for 

juveniles in all populations, the timing of juvenile steelhead migration raises questions about the 

significance of this limiting factor; see Section 9.4.3. 

20 Although the Oregon management unit plan lists food web shifts as a primary limiting factor in the 

estuary, NMFS and the management unit planners agreed to consider such shifts secondary in this recovery 

plan to more closely reflect conclusions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a). The extent to which food web shifts limit salmonid survival in the estuary is 

unclear. 

21 It is likely that flow impacts of the hydropower system affect the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS 

more through changes in habitat-forming processes (including impacts to the plume) and food web impacts 

than through changes in migratory travel time.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-25

mainstem temperatures are unlikely to be having a significant impact. The impacts of 

Bonneville Dam on passage and habitat quantity have been identified as a secondary 

limiting factor for Upper Gorge winter steelhead, Wind summer steelhead, and both 

populations of Hood steelhead.22

The effects of tributary dams vary among steelhead populations. In the Cascade winter 

steelhead stratum, tributary hydropower development is a primary limiting factor for 

adults and juveniles in the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and North Fork Lewis populations, 

which historically were among the most productive winter steelhead populations, and 

for the Tilton population; access to significant amounts of historical habitat in these river 

systems has been blocked by tributary dams, which also have had adverse impacts on 

downstream habitat through reduced gravel recruitment and other effects. Tributary 

hydropower issues related to upstream passage of adult winter steelhead past the Bull 

Run water system dams in the Sandy subbasin and downstream passage of juvenile 

winter steelhead through the PGE Clackamas River Project were identified as secondary 

limiting factors. There are no tributary hydropower facilities in the Coweeman, Toutle, 

Kalama, Salmon Creek, or Washougal subbasins.23

In the Cascade summer steelhead stratum, impaired habitat access and passage has been 

identified as a primary limiting factor for North Fork Lewis summer steelhead; tributary 

dams have blocked access to or inundated about 50 percent of the historical habitat for 

that population (LCFRB 2010a). In addition, tributary dams have adverse effects on 

downstream habitat through reduced gravel recruitment and other impacts. There are 

no tributary hydropower facilities in the Kalama and Washougal subbasins.

In the Gorge winter steelhead stratum, impaired adult passage is considered a 

secondary limiting factor for the Hood River population because of Laurence Lake Dam 

and Powerdale Dam (removed in 2010). The impacts of Bonneville Dam on adult and 

juvenile passage are identified as a secondary factor for both the Upper Gorge and Hood 

winter steelhead populations. Upstream passage to potential spawning grounds is 

limited by Bonneville Dam, and inundation of historical habitat has reduced habitat 

quantity for juveniles.

In the Gorge summer steelhead stratum, Powerdale Dam on the Hood River hindered 

access of adult steelhead to historical spawning areas until its removal in 2010. 

Inundation from the Bonneville Dam and the concomitant loss of historical riparian 

ecosystems has also reduced habitat quality for juvenile summer steelhead in the Hood 

River population.

9.4.4 Harvest Limiting Factors

Harvest-related mortality is identified as a secondary limiting factor for all populations 

within the DPS. Currently, harvest-related mortality on steelhead is limited to incidental 

mortality in Columbia River mainstem commercial gillnet fisheries, incidental mortality 

 22 The exact extent to which Bonneville Dam inundated habitats for any species is unknown. Some biologists 

have hypothesized impacts to steelhead as a result of inundation. Based on spawning habitat preferences, it 

is likely that impacts of inundation were greatest on fall Chinook and chum salmon. 

23 However, the North Fork Toutle sediment retention structure currently blocks access to as many as 

50 miles of habitat for anadromous fish.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-26

in tributary recreational fisheries, and small levels of directed harvest in tribal fisheries 

above Bonneville Dam in Zone 6. Before the mid-1970s, harvest levels on natural-origin 

steelhead regularly exceeded 70 percent. However, implementation of mark-selective 

fisheries for hatchery steelhead has reduced recent impacts to 10 percent or less for most 

populations. Summer steelhead populations originating above Bonneville Dam are 

subject to somewhat higher rates—on the order of 15 percent or less— as a result of the 

combined effects tribal and non-tribal fisheries. Although the management unit plans 

identify steelhead harvest as a limiting factor, they also determine that the significant 

reduction in the harvest of steelhead over the last 20 or 30 years has resulted in harvest 

levels that appear to be consistent with achieving recovery objectives (ODFW 2010, 

LCFRB 2010a).

9.4.5 Hatchery-Related Limiting Factors

More than 2 million winter steelhead and 1.4 million summer steelhead were released 

from Lower Columbia River hatchery programs in 2008 (ODFW 2010). Many Lower 

Columbia River steelhead populations have large proportions of hatchery-origin 

spawners. Population-level effects resulting from stray hatchery fish interbreeding with 

natural-origin fish are identified as a primary limiting factor for the Upper and Lower 

Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, Lewis, Salmon Creek, and Sandy winter populations and the 

North Fork Lewis and Hood summer populations, and as a secondary limiting factor for 

the East Fork Lewis and Washougal summer populations and all other winter

populations.24 Hatchery straying, combined with past stock transfers, is believed to have 

reduced genetic diversity within and among Lower Columbia River steelhead 

populations. Productivity likewise has declined as a result of the influence of hatcheryorigin fish. High proportions of hatchery-origin spawners are sometimes intentional, 

however, because hatchery fish are being used to reintroduce steelhead where they have 

been extirpated or nearly so (e.g., in the Cowlitz, and Lewis subbasins). In identifying 

hatchery-related limiting factors, the management unit plans evaluated only negative 

impacts of hatchery fish on productivity of natural fish and not the positive 

demographic benefits that such reintroduction programs can provide in the short term.

Some scientists suspect that closely spaced releases of hatchery fish from all Columbia 

Basin hatcheries may lead to increased competition with natural-origin fish for food and 

habitat space in the estuary. NMFS (2011a) and LCFRB (2010a) identified competition for 

food and space among hatchery and natural-origin juveniles in the estuary as a critical 

uncertainty. ODFW (2010) acknowledged that uncertainty but listed competition for 

food and space as a secondary limiting factor for juveniles of all populations. The NMFS 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center are working to better define 

and describe the scientific uncertainty associated with ecological interactions between 

hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon and steelhead in freshwater, estuarine, and 

nearshore ocean habitats. 

 24 The nature and extent of risk to natural populations posed by hatchery programs affecting these 

populations will be the focus of future ESA section 7 consultations.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-27

9.4.6 Predation 

Direct mortality from predation is a secondary limiting factor that affects all Lower 

Columbia River steelhead populations. Anthropogenic changes to habitat structure have 

led to increased predation by Caspian terns, double-crested cormorants, and various 

other seabird species in the Columbia River estuary and plume. Steelhead spawning 

above Bonneville Dam also are subject to predation by non-salmonid fish (primarily 

pikeminnows above and below the dam but also walleye and smallmouth bass in the 

reservoir). Winter steelhead spawning above Bonneville Dam are also subject to 

predation by marine mammals (primarily sea lions) at Bonneville Dam. 

9.5 Baseline Threat Impacts and Threat Reduction Targets

Table 9-7 shows the estimated impact on each Lower Columbia River steelhead 

population of potentially manageable threats, organized into six threat categories: 

tributary habitat degradation, estuary habitat degradation, hydropower, harvest, 

hatcheries, and predation. Both baseline and target impacts are shown, with the targets 

representing levels that would be consistent with long-term recovery goals. Impact

values indicate the percentage reduction in abundance and productivity that is 

attributable to human activities related to a particular threat category. The value 

associated with any particular threat category can be interpreted as the percent 

reduction in abundance and productivity from historical conditions if that threat 

category were the only one affecting the population. The table also shows the overall 

percentage improvement that is needed to achieve the target impacts and corresponding 

population status.25 These cumulative values across all threat categories (both baseline 

and target) are multiplicative rather than additive. Both the Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans use cumulative survivals across threat categories to illustrate the 

overall level of improvement needed. Each plan assumes that there is a direct 

proportional relationship between the projected changes in cumulative survival and the 

required changes in natural-origin spawner abundance and productivity. For 

populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 percent, Table 9-

7 does not report the exact value, in part because the value is highly uncertain.26

As an example, the baseline status of the Clackamas winter steelhead population has 

been severely reduced by the combined effects of multiple threats. The cumulative 

reduction in status was estimated at 81.8 percent from the multiplicative impacts of 

multiple threats acting across the salmon life cycle. Thus, current status is just 18.2 

percent of the historical potential with no human impact. Tributary habitat and hatchery 

 25 The percentage of survival improvement needed is the percentage change in net impacts, is derived from 

information in the Washington and Oregon management unit plans, and is calculated as follows: [(1-

CumulativeTarget)-(1-CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. These values generally correspond to 

population improvement targets identified for Washington populations in LCFRB (2010a). Comparable 

numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling approach that Oregon 

recovery planners used to derive target impacts.

26 For some populations—many of them small—the survival improvement needed is very large and highly 

uncertain because various other factors also are uncertain (i.e., the population’s baseline persistence 

probability, the exact degree of impact of human activities on tributary habitat, and whether the 

population’s response to reductions in impacts will be linear). In addition, very small populations do not 

necessarily follow predictable patterns in their response to changing conditions.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-28

impacts are the largest, accounting independently for reductions of 65 and 23 percent, 

respectively, in population productivity, with corresponding reductions in abundance, 

spatial structure, and diversity. The Oregon management unit plan identifies a recovery 

strategy for this population that involves significant reductions in the impact of habitat 

and hatcheries and smaller reductions in the impacts of estuarine habitat and predation. 

For instance, the plan targets tributary habitat impacts to be reduced from the estimated 

baseline level of 65 percent to 24 percent (i.e., an approximately 117 percent 

improvement relative to baseline conditions). With the targeted reductions in individual 

impacts, the cumulative effect of all impacts would drop from 81.8 percent at baseline to 

50 percent at the target status. This change would translate into a 170 percent 

improvement in survival relative to the baseline. Although the population would still be 

experiencing abundance and productivity that are 74.7 percent lower than historical 

conditions, the extinction risk at this mortality level would be estimated sufficient to 

meet the targets for this plan.

Oregon and Washington recovery planners used somewhat different definitions or 

methods to quantify the estimated impacts of anthropogenic threats. Baseline impacts 

for Washington populations reflect conditions prevalent at the time of ESA listing (circa 

1999), while the baseline impacts for Oregon populations reflect conditions through 

2004. Dam impacts for Washington populations reflect passage mortality, habitat loss 

caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas; for Oregon 

populations, the estimates in the “Dams” column of Table 9-7 reflect direct upstream 

and downstream passage mortality only, with other dam impacts accounted for in the 

habitat and predation threat categories. Hatchery impacts for Washington populations 

were limited to not more than 50 percent per population, in accordance with Hatchery 

Scientific Review Group (HSRG) assessments of the potential for genetic effects 

(Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2009); Oregon recovery planners estimated that 

hatchery impacts were equivalent to the rates at which hatchery fish were found on 

natural spawning grounds, based on analyzed relationships and reflecting a concern for 

both genetic and ecological effects. Washington recovery planners derived estimates of 

impacts to tributary habitat using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model. 

Oregon recovery planners estimated the mortality associated with estuary habitat 

degradation, hydropower, harvest, hatcheries, and predation and assigned all remaining 

mortality (relative to the difference between the current modeled abundance and 

estimated historical abundance) to tributary habitat. In general, the tributary habitat 

values in Table 9-7 have the highest degree of uncertainty relative to the other threat 

categories and, for Oregon populations, may include causes of mortality associated with 

the other threat categories but not directly captured in those mortality estimates. (See 

Section 5.5 for more on the methodologies used to estimate baseline impacts.)

Estimates of threat impacts are useful in showing the relative magnitude of impacts on 

each population. Given the differences in methodologies, some values in Table 9-7 for 

Oregon and Washington populations are not necessarily directly comparable. Thus, 

values for Oregon populations are most directly comparable to those for other Oregon 

populations, and values for Washington populations are most directly comparable to 

those for other Washington populations. Regardless of differences in specific threat 

impact definitions and methods, the net effect of changes from all threats is useful in 

understanding the magnitude of population improvement needed to achieve the target 

population status. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-29

The target impacts represent one of several possible combinations of threat reductions 

that could conceivably close the conservation gap and lead to a population achieving its 

target status. The particular threat reductions shown in Table 9-7 reflect policy decisions 

and the methodologies and assumptions used by the different recovery planning teams. 

(For a description of how target impacts were developed, see Section 5.6.) In estimating 

impacts, management unit recovery planners evaluated each threat category 

independently (i.e., values in the table reflect the mortality of steelhead exposed to that 

particular category of threats, whether or not they are exposed to threats in other 

categories). The estimates of baseline threat impacts have high levels of uncertainty and 

in many cases should be considered working hypotheses that are testable as part of 

recovery plan implementation. Despite this uncertainty, it is the expert judgment of 

NMFS and management unit scientists that, based on the best available information at 

this time, the estimates of baseline threat impacts provide a reasonable estimate of the 

relative magnitude of different sources of anthropogenic mortality and serve as an 

adequate basis for designing initial recovery actions.27 As more and better information is 

collected, it will be applied to recovery efforts in an adaptive management framework.

As shown in Table 9-7, loss and degradation of tributary habitat, hatchery effects, and 

predation are pervasive threats that affect most steelhead populations. However, 

expected threat reductions vary by population. 

In the Cascade ecozone, the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, and North Fork Lewis winter 

populations and the East Fork Lewis summer population are targeted for the largest 

improvements, with sizeable reductions needed in all or most threat categories, 

including predation. For the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, and North Fork Lewis 

winter populations, the greatest gains in persistence probability are expected to be 

achieved by reestablishing natural populations above tributary dams; however, 

reductions in hatchery- and tributary habitat-related threats are also targeted to 

contribute significantly to gains in persistence probability. For the East Fork Lewis 

summer population, improvements in tributary habitat are projected to provide the 

greatest benefit. All of these populations are designated primary except the Tilton and 

North Fork Lewis winter populations, which are designated as contributing. 

Other Cascade populations targeted for large threat reductions are the Clackamas and 

Sandy winter steelhead populations. For Sandy winter steelhead, the most significant 

threat reductions are targeted to be achieved through reductions in hatchery-related

threats.28 For Clackamas winter steelhead, sizeable reductions in both hatchery- and 

tributary habitat-related threats are called for.29 The threat reductions needed to achieve 

targets for other primary and contributing populations within the Cascade strata are 

relatively small, with improvements in tributary habitat figuring most prominently. This 

is the case for the Lower Cowlitz, North and South Fork Toutle, Coweeman, Kalama, 

 27 As implementation proceeds, research, monitoring, and evaluation and adaptive management will be key 

in helping to refine scientific understanding of the impact of threats on population persistence and of the 

extent to which management actions are reducing threats. 

28 The Oregon management unit plan states that, because of fairly recent changes in the management of the 

hatchery steelhead program, current stray rates in the Sandy winter steelhead population already are lower 

than the 10 percent called for delisting (ODFW 2010).

29 However, the Oregon management unit plan describes the targeted level of tributary habitat 

improvements for the Clackamas winter steelhead population as infeasible (see ODFW 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-30

East Fork Lewis, and Washougal winter populations and the Kalama and Washougal 

summer populations. For the Kalama summer steelhead population, Table 9-7 does not 

show threat reductions because the baseline abundance and productivity of the 

population are high; however, improvements in diversity will be needed in the Kalama 

summer population to meet recovery objectives. 

The Salmon Creek winter and North Fork Lewis summer steelhead populations are not 

targeted for threat reductions, although they are expected to benefit from actions to 

reduce threats to other species and populations. These populations are designated as 

stabilizing because of habitat degradation in the highly urbanized Salmon Creek 

subbasin and because access to most of the North Fork summer population’s historical 

spawning habitat has been blocked by Merwin Dam. 

In the Gorge strata, all populations are designated as primary except the Upper Gorge 

winter population, which is considered contributing. For the Lower and Upper Gorge 

winter populations, target status is targeted to be achieved mostly by reducing tributary 

habitat-related threats, especially in Oregon. For the Hood winter population, no 

tributary habitat threat reductions are called for. Instead, the greatest gains in 

persistence probability are targeted from reductions in hatchery- and hydropowerrelated threats. The Hood summer steelhead population is targeted for significant 

reductions in multiple threat categories, with particularly large reductions in tributary 

habitat- and hydropower-related threats and a complete elimination of hatchery threats 

(summer steelhead will no longer be released in the Hood subbasin).30 For the Wind 

summer steelhead population, Table 9-7 does not show threat reductions because the 

baseline abundance and productivity of the population are very high; however, 

improvements in diversity will be needed in the Wind summer population to meet 

recovery objectives. 

With harvest impacts on natural-origin winter steelhead having dropped substantially 

from historical highs, further reductions in harvest impacts do not figure prominently in 

the threat reduction scenarios for most steelhead populations. The recovery strategy 

involves continued management of fisheries to limit impacts to baseline levels.

Threat reductions associated with estuary habitat improvements are needed for recovery 

and will benefit every steelhead population; however, net reductions in this threat 

category are smaller than those for tributary habitat-related threats, hatcheries, 

predation, and, in some cases, hydropower and harvest because for most populations 

the impacts of estuarine habitat-related threats are less.

More information on threat reductions, including methodologies used to determine 

baseline and target impacts, is available in the management unit plans (ODFW 2010, pp. 

151-168 and 195-200; LCFRB 2010a, pp. 4-30 through 4-33 and 6-65 through 6-70).

 30 The targeted level of tributary habitat improvements for the Hood summer steelhead population is 

described in the Oregon management unit plan as infeasible (see ODFW 2010).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-31

Table 9-7

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Impacts of Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Steelhead Populations

Impacts at Baseline31 Impacts at Target

Population T. Hab33 Est

34 Dams35 Har36 Hat37 Pred38 Cumulative39 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

% 

Survival 

Improvement

Needed32

Cascade Summer

Kalama (WA) 0.43 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.24 0.6719 0.43 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.24 0.6719 0

NF Lewis (WA) 0.40 0.15 0.50 0.10 0.47 0.24 0.9076 0.40 0.15 0.50 0.10 0.47 0.24 0.9076 0

EF Lewis (WA) 0.70 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.26 0.24 0.8709 0.35 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.12 0.5651 >500

 31 Impact figures represent a percentage reduction in abundance and productivity that is attributable to human activities related to a particular threat category. 

Methods used to estimate impacts differ for Oregon and Washington populations. For example, baseline impacts reflect conditions circa 1999 for Washington 

populations and through 2004 for Oregon populations. Given the methodological differences, impact figures are not necessarily directly comparable. See Sections 

5.5 and 5.6 for more on methodologies.

32 Survival improvements indicate the percentage improvement (rounded to the nearest 10) in population survival needed to achieve target impacts and are 

derived from the cumulative values (baseline and target). For most populations this was calculated using the following equation: [(1-CumulativeTarget)-(1-

CumulativeBaseline)]/[1-CumulativeBaseline] x 100. For the East Fork Lewis population , this equation yields a different result than that reported in LCFRB (2010a) 

because, for populations that have a very low probability of persistence and require very large improvements, the Washington management unit plan limited 

threat-specific reductions to 50 percent of the current impact as interim targets until the population response to improvements can be accurately gauged. For the 

East Fork Lewis, the numbers reported in this table are consistent with LCFRB (2010a) rather than with the aforementioned equation. In addition, these cumulative 

impact numbers are not explicitly reported in ODFW (2010) but are implicit in the modeling approach that Oregon recovery planners used to derive target 

impacts. For populations where the survival improvement needed is larger than 500 percent, this table does not report the exact value, for the reasons explained in 

Section 9.5. 

33 Reduction in tributary habitat production potential relative to historical conditions. Oregon and Washington used different methods to estimate historical 

abundance. Oregon’s approach, which incorporates safety margins and includes causes of mortality that are not captured in the other five threat categories, tends 

to indicate a higher potential impact from tributary habitat loss and degradation than does Washington’s.

34 Reduction in juvenile survival in the Columbia River estuary as a result of habitat changes (relative to historical conditions); excludes predation.

35 Reflects passage mortality, habitat loss caused by inundation, and loss of access to historical production areas for Washington populations; for Oregon 

populations, dam impacts reflect direct passage mortality only.

36 Includes direct and indirect mortality.

37 Reflects only the negative impacts of hatchery-origin fish, such as high pHOS and low PNI (proportion of natural influence), not the benefits of conservation 

hatchery programs.

38 Includes the aggregate predation rate in the Columbia River mainstem and estuary by northern pikeminnow, marine mammals, Caspian terns, and cormorants.

39 Cumulative values (both baseline and target) are multiplicative rather than additive and are equal to (1-[(1-Mthab)(1-Mest)(1-Mdams)(1-Mharv)(1-Mhatch)(1-Mpred)]). 

Minor differences from numbers in ODFW 2010 and LCFRB 2010a are due to rounding.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-32

Table 9-7

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Impacts of Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Steelhead Populations

Impacts at Baseline31 Impacts at Target

Population T. Hab33 Est

34 Dams35 Har36 Hat37 Pred38 Cumulative39 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

% 

Survival 

Improvement

Needed32

Washougal (WA) 0.40 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.30 0.24 0.7558 0.32 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.19 0.6611 40

Gorge Summer

Wind (WA) 0.50 0.14 0.11 0.17 0.01 0.27 0.7704 0.50 0.14 0.11 0.17 0.01 0.27 0.7704 0

Hood (OR)

40 0.95 0.07 0.36 0.15 0.53 0.15 0.9899 0.14 0.07 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.08 0.4746 >500

Cascade Winter

Lower Cowlitz 

(WA) 0.70 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.49 0.24 0.9110 0.69 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.48 0.23 0.9053 10

Upper Cowlitz 

(WA) 0.40 0.15 1.00 0.10 0.49 0.24 1.00 0.20 0.08 0.50 0.05 0.25 0.12 0.7693 >50041

Cispus (WA) 0.60 0.15 1.00 0.10 0.49 0.24 1.00 0.30 0.08 0.50 0.05 0.25 0.12 0.7981 >500

Tilton (WA) 0.90 0.15 1.00 0.10 0.49 0.24 1.00 0.45 0.08 0.50 0.05 0.25 0.12 0.8414 >500

SF Toutle (WA) 0.80 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.9116 0.74 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.8762 40

NF Toutle (WA) 0.80 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.33 0.24 0.9221 0.64 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.26 0.19 0.8253 120

Coweeman (WA) 0.50 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.12 0.24 0.7442 0.43 0.13 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.20 0.6751 30

Kalama (WA) 0.50 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.24 0.7151 0.37 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.18 0.5810 50

NF Lewis (WA) 0.10 0.15 0.92 0.10 0.49 0.24 0.9787 0.05 0.08 0.46 0.05 0.25 0.12 0.7041 >500

EF Lewis (WA) 0.50 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.48 0.24 0.8488 0.45 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.44 0.22 0.8120 20

Salmon Creek 

(WA) 0.80 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.24 0.9419 0.80 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.24 0.9419 0

 

40 Oregon’s analysis indicates a low probability of meeting the delisting objective of high viability persistence probability for this population.

41 The Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and Tilton populations require improvements in every threat category. However, given that hydropower impacts are 100 percent 

for these populations, they will not benefit from improvements in the other threat categories until some degree of passage is restored. Although passage 

improvements alone will not lead to recovery, how successful passage improvements are will greatly influence how much improvement is needed in the other 

threat categories. In addition the formula for percent survival improvement for these populations was modified to account for the 100 percent hydropower 

impacts (i.e., to avoid having to divide by zero). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-33

Table 9-7

Impacts of Potentially Manageable Impacts of Threats and Impact Reduction Targets Consistent with Recovery of LCR Steelhead Populations

Impacts at Baseline31 Impacts at Target

Population T. Hab33 Est

34 Dams35 Har36 Hat37 Pred38 Cumulative39 T. Hab Est Dams Harv Hat Pred Cumulative

% 

Survival 

Improvement

Needed32

Clackamas (OR)

42 0.65 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.8175 0.24 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.4996 170

Sandy (OR) 0.82 0.10 0.04 0.10 0.52 0.12 0.9409 0.81 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.8683 120

Washougal (WA) 0.50 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.08 0.24 0.7326 0.46 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.08 0.22 0.6967 10

Gorge Winter

L. Gorge —WA 

portion 0.60 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.22 0.7637 0.48 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.18 0.6548 50

L. Gorge—OR 

portion 0.60 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.7434 0.40 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.5842 60

U. Gorge—WA 

portion 0.60 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.01 0.30 0.8090 0.60 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.01 0.30 0.8090 0

U. Gorge—OR 

portion 0.51 0.07 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.16 0.7540 0.30 0.07 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.6235 50

Hood (OR) -0.01 0.07 0.36 0.15 0.30 0.16 0.6995 -0.01 0.07 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.4675 80

 

42 Oregon’s analysis indicates a low probability of meeting the delisting objective of high viability persistence probability for this population.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-34

9.6 DPS Recovery Strategy for LCR Steelhead

This section describes the recovery strategy for Lower Columbia River steelhead. A 

general summary of the DPS-level strategy is presented first. This is followed by 

subsections on each of the threat categories and critical uncertainties that pertain to the 

strategy. Where appropriate, stratum-specific strategies are described for each 

threat category. 

9.6.1 Strategy Summary

The recovery strategy for the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS is aimed at restoring 

the Cascade and Gorge winter and summer strata to a high probability of persistence.43

Although the strategy involves threat reductions in all categories, the most crucial 

elements are as follows:

1. Protect favorable tributary habitat and restore degraded but potentially 

productive habitat, especially in subbasins where large improvements in 

population abundance and productivity are needed to achieve recovery goals. 

This is the case in the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, North Fork Toutle, Kalama, and 

Sandy subbasins for winter steelhead and in the East Fork Lewis and Hood 

subbasins for summer steelhead.

2. Protect and improve the South Fork Toutle, East Fork Lewis, Clackamas, and 

Hood winter steelhead populations, which currently are the best-performing 

winter populations, to a high probability of persistence. This will be 

accomplished through population-specific combinations of threat reductions, to 

include protection and restoration of tributary habitat (crucial for all except the 

Hood population), reductions in pHOS, and—for the Hood population—

removal of Powerdale Dam (this was completed in 2010). 

3. Significantly reduce hatchery impacts on the Hood summer steelhead

population44 and, to a lesser degree, on many other populations, especially the 

Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton, North Fork Lewis, and Clackamas winter 

populations and the East Fork summer population. Continue to limit hatchery 

impacts on the Kalama and Wind summer steelhead populations to improve 

population diversity. (The baseline abundance and productivity of these two 

populations are high and very high, respectively.)

4. Reestablish naturally spawning winter steelhead populations above tributary 

dams in the Cowlitz system (Upper Cowlitz and Cispus populations) and 

improve the status of the Tilton winter steelhead population through hatchery 

 43 Steelhead populations in the Coast ecozone are part of the Southwest Washington steelhead DPS and are 

not listed under the federal ESA; thus, they are not addressed in this recovery plan.

44 The Sandy winter steelhead population was also targeted for a significant reduction in hatchery impacts 

(i.e., 80 percent). However, the Oregon management unit plan states that, because of fairly recent changes in 

the management of the hatchery steelhead program, current stray rates in the Sandy winter steelhead 

population already are lower than the 10 percent called for in the threat reduction targets (ODFW 2010 

p. 196).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-35

reintroductions and comprehensive threat reductions; reintroduce winter 

steelhead above dams on the North Fork Lewis River.

5. Reduce predation by birds, non-salmonid fish, and marine mammals.

If the DPS is to achieve recovery, improvements are needed in the persistence 

probability of most populations, and very large improvements are needed in the status 

of some populations (the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, North Fork Toutle, Kalama, and Sandy 

winter populations and the East Fork Lewis and Hood summer populations). (See 

Table 9-4 for the target status for each steelhead population and Figures 9-5 and 9-6 for 

the gaps between baseline and target status.) 

The recovery strategy for Lower Columbia River steelhead is a long-term, “all-H” 

approach in which plan implementers begin work on all of the elements described above 

immediately and implement actions associated with each of the six threat categories

simultaneously.45 As part of a series of 3- to 5-year implementation schedules, 

management unit planners will work with NMFS staff to prioritize individual actions 

within each threat category, rather than across threat categories (see Chapter 11 for more 

on implementation). Recovery will require improvements in every threat category, even 

those improvements in Table 9-7 that are relatively small. Substantial actions are needed 

to improve tributary habitat, reduce the effects of hatcheries on natural populations, 

manage predation, and, for some populations, address hydropower passage issues. 

Without improvements in all of these threat categories, the full benefits of actions in any 

individual sector, such as improved passage at tributary dams, are unlikely to be 

realized and the expected threat reductions will not be achieved. Recovery also will 

require contributions from estuary habitat actions; however, for stream-type fish such as 

steelhead, these gains are expected to be less than those from coordinated efforts to 

address tributary habitat, hatchery, and predation impacts.

Immediate implementation of certain actions is expected to reduce short-term 

population risk relatively quickly; examples include site-specific projects to (1) protect 

and restore habitat complexity and diversity, (2) provide access to side channels and offchannel habitats, and (3) protect or restore floodplain connectivity and function. The 

benefits of other actions, such as restoring riparian conditions to improve watershed 

function, will not be felt for years or decades after implementation. For many 

populations, actions are needed soon to start reducing the impact of hatchery-origin fish 

so that populations can become self-sustaining as habitat conditions improve. A first 

step in this process is to develop population-specific transition strategies that specify 

how and when hatchery strategies described in the management unit plans will 

be implemented. 

Key uncertainties that need to be addressed to support implementation of near-term 

actions for Lower Columbia River steelhead relate to techniques for reducing pHOS and 

increasing passage efficiencies past tributary dams, and the pace at which reintroduced 

populations become functional and self-sustaining (see Section 9.6.7).

 45 Implementation of recovery actions to reduce threats in each category is already under way, although the 

scale of effort is less than that called for in this recovery plan.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-36

The subsections below describe recovery strategies and near-term and long-term 

priorities for each threat category. For specific management actions in each threat 

category, linked to population and location, see the management unit plans (LCFRB 

2010a and ODFW 2010). 

9.6.2 Tributary Habitat Strategy

Lower Columbia River steelhead will benefit from the regional tributary strategy 

described in Section 4.1.2. The regional strategy is directed toward protecting and 

restoring high-quality, well-functioning salmon and steelhead habitat through a 

combination of (1) site-specific management actions that will protect habitat and provide 

benefits relatively quickly, (2) watershed-based actions designed to protect or restore 

habitat-forming processes and provide benefits over the long term, and (3) landscapescale programmatic actions that affect a class of activities (such as stormwater 

management or forest practices) over multiple watersheds. Actions of particular benefit 

to steelhead focus on protecting and restoring habitat complexity and diversity, access to 

side channels and off-channel habitats, and floodplain connectivity and function in highpriority stream reaches. Improving riparian cover and recruitment of large wood to 

streams also will be a priority. The subsections below summarize additional, stratumspecific tributary habitat strategies for steelhead. 

9.6.2.1 Cascade Winter and Summer Steelhead Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the tributary habitat strategy for the Cascade strata, considerations 

include the following:

• Generally, habitat conditions are favorable in the upper portions of the Cowlitz, 

Cispus, and North Fork Lewis subbasins, where winter steelhead populations 

are targeted for viability but where access has been blocked by dams. In these 

areas, protecting high-quality habitat and restoring upslope processes that 

improve and maintain habitat quality will be priorities. Large portions of these 

areas are in federal forest land; this highlights the importance of implementing 

the Northwest Forest Plan to protect habitats in those areas.

• Habitat conditions are also generally favorable in the Sandy subbasin (the Sandy 

winter steelhead population is targeted for very high persistence probability). 

Again, large portions of this subbasin are in federal forest land. Implementation 

of the City of Portland’s Bull Run water supply habitat conservation plan also 

will improve habitat quality and increase the amount of habitat available to 

Sandy winter steelhead.

• Substantial restoration effort will be needed in areas currently accessible to 

Lower Columbia River steelhead. Because steelhead use mid- to upper-basin 

habitats for spawning and rearing, restoration efforts will focus on such areas, 

both in historically highly productive watersheds and in areas where production 

potential is more limited. Specific actions will include those described above for 

Lower Columbia River steelhead generally. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-37

• State or private forest land predominates in the upper portions of the Toutle, 

Kalama, and North Fork Lewis subbasins, and the upper portions of the East 

Fork Lewis and Washougal subbasins also are forested, with state/federal and 

private/federal ownership, respectively. These forest lands must be managed to 

protect and restore watershed processes (such as by implementing the Northwest 

Forest Plan and Washington’s habitat conservation plan for state-owned forest 

land and Forest Practices Rules for private forest land).

• Managing the impacts of growth and development will be important in all 

subbasin but particularly in the Washougal, where human population growth is 

expected to be large.

• In all subbasins, but particularly in the East Fork Lewis, restoring lowland 

floodplain function, riparian function, and stream habitat diversity will be 

important. The historically active floodplain and channel migration zone in the 

lower mainstem East Fork Lewis has been drastically altered by modifications to 

protect rural residential development, agricultural land, and gravel mining 

operations.

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

addressing passage barriers such as culverts will benefit steelhead by restoring access to 

habitat in a number of locations; in some cases, additional assessment is needed to 

inventory passage barriers and prioritize them for removal or improvement. For the 

North Fork Toutle winter steelhead population, addressing sedimentation and passage 

issues at the North Fork Toutle sediment retention structure will be key. In the Sandy 

subbasin, municipal water withdrawals by the City of Portland have adverse effects on 

instream flows and are being addressed by implementation of the city of Portland’s Bull 

Run Water Supply habitat conservation plan. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 9-7, 

the scale of habitat improvements that will be needed for Cascade winter steelhead 

populations ranges from minimal in the case of the Salmon Creek and Sandy 

populations (the Salmon Creek population is targeted to be maintained at its baseline 

status, and habitat conditions in the Sandy subbasin are generally good) to reductions of 

50 percent (Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, Tilton) or more (Clackamas) in baseline habitat 

impacts to tributary habitat productivity.46

The scale of habitat improvements needed for Cascade summer steelhead populations 

ranges from minimal in the case of the Kalama and North Fork Lewis populations 

(which are targeted for high and very low persistence probabilities, respectively) to a 

20 percent reduction in baseline tributary habitat impacts in the Washougal and a 50 

percent reduction in the East Fork Lewis. 

 46 The Oregon management unit plan notes that achieving the level of habitat improvement identified to 

meet the target status of high persistence probability for the Clackamas winter steelhead population is not 

feasible (ODFW 2010, p. 195). It is possible that the Cascade winter steelhead stratum would meet the WLC 

TRT’s viability criteria for high probability of stratum persistence even if the Clackamas population were 

maintained at its baseline status, depending on the outcome of recovery efforts for other populations in the 

stratum.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-38

9.6.2.2 Gorge Winter and Summer Steelhead Tributary Habitat Strategies

In implementing the tributary habitat strategy for the Gorge strata, considerations 

include the following:

• Gorge populations occur in watersheds that are largely federal, state, and private 

forest land. These lands must be managed to protect and restore watershed 

processes. 

• In the lower reaches of most Gorge tributary streams, floodplains have been 

drastically altered or disconnected as a result of channel modification to facilitate 

and protect development and agricultural land. 

• Water quality and flow in the Hood subbasin are adversely affected by water 

withdrawals for irrigation, low-head hydropower, and the use of agricultural 

chemicals. 

• For the Lower and Upper Gorge winter steelhead populations, site-specific 

actions will include addressing or mitigating the impacts of the highway and 

railroad transportation corridors that run parallel to the Columbia River 

shoreline, traversing all creek drainages in ways that restrict access and 

disconnect upland and lowland habitat processes.

In addition to the actions described as part of the regional strategy for tributary habitat, 

for the Hood summer population, reduced instream flow from irrigation withdrawals is 

a primary threat, so actions to identify and implement flow improvements will be 

important. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 9-7, 

reductions in baseline tributary habitat impacts needed to meet target statuses for Gorge 

winter steelhead populations are on the order of 20 to 40 percent for the Upper and 

Lower Gorge winter steelhead populations. For the Hood population, although existing 

habitat appears to be adequate, the Oregon management unit plan expects that habitat 

actions benefitting other species will also benefit winter steelhead. 

Assuming that the impacts of other threats are reduced to the levels shown in Table 9-7, 

the scale of habitat improvements needed to meet targets for Gorge summer steelhead 

populations ranges from minimal, for the currently viable Wind summer population,47

to an 85 percent reduction in baseline tributary habitat impacts for the Hood population.

The Oregon management unit plan notes that tributary habitat improvements of this 

magnitude are not feasible in the Hood subbasin and that the Hood population is 

unlikely to achieve a high persistence probability (ODFW 2010).

 47 Although the Wind summer steelhead population currently is viable and is not targeted for 

improvements in abundance and productivity, increases in the diversity of this population are needed for it 

to achieve recovery goals. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-39

9.6.3 Estuary Habitat Strategy

Improving Columbia River estuary habitat as described in the regional estuary habitat 

strategy will benefit all Columbia Basin ESUs, including Lower Columbia River 

steelhead. (For a summary of the regional estuarine habitat strategy, see Section 4.2.2.) 

The regional strategy reflects actions presented in the Oregon and Washington 

management unit plans to reduce estuarine habitat-related threats and is consistent with 

actions in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead

(NMFS 2011a).

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) assumes that feasible estuarine habitat improvements and predation 

management measures could result in a maximum increase of 20 percent in the number 

of outmigrating juveniles leaving the Columbia River estuary. Oregon and Washington 

recovery planners set targets of reducing anthropogenically enhanced mortality in the 

estuary for winter steelhead populations based on the estuary module and their own 

approaches to threat reductions (ODFW 2010 195-199, Tables 6-30 through 6-35; LCFRB 

2010a p. 6-66, Table 6-13). 

9.6.4 Hydropower Strategy

The hydropower recovery strategy for Lower Columbia River steelhead is to address 

impacts of tributary hydropower dams through implementation of FERC relicensing 

agreements and thereby reestablish viable winter-run populations in the Upper Cowlitz 

and Cispus subbasins and achieve survival gains in other populations affected by 

tributary hydropower facilities.

The strategy also includes measures to improve passage survival at Bonneville Dam for 

the populations that spawn above Bonneville Dam and implementation of mainstem 

flow management operations designed to benefit spring migrants from the interior of 

the Columbia Basin; NMFS expects that these flow management operations will also 

improve survival in the estuary and, potentially, the plume for all Lower Columbia 

River salmon and steelhead populations. NMFS estimates that survival of Lower 

Columbia River steelhead passing Bonneville Dam was 90.6 percent for juveniles from 

2002 to 2009 and 98.5 percent for adults from 2002 to 2007 (NMFS 2008a). NMFS expects 

that implementation of actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement will improve juvenile steelhead salmon survival at Bonneville Dam by less 

than 1⁄2 percent, and that adult survival will be maintained at recent high levels (NMFS 

2008a). Consequently, Oregon has not incorporated survival benefits from passage 

improvements at Bonneville into the hydropower threat reduction targets for Oregon 

populations above Bonneville.48 The Washington management unit plan assumes that 

actions identified in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement will aid 

adults and juveniles from all steelhead populations originating above Bonneville Dam. 

For more on actions to improve mainstem dam passage, see the regional hydropower 

strategy in Section 4.3.2. 

 48 Hydropower-related threat reduction targets for Oregon populations above Bonneville Dam are 

associated with removal of Powerdale Dam on the Hood River.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-40

In its management unit plan, Oregon incorporated several actions addressing impacts of 

the Columbia River hydropower system that are not included in the FCRPS Biological 

Opinion and its 2010 Supplement but that Oregon maintains are needed to benefit 

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations that spawn above Bonneville 

Dam. The state of Oregon’s position is that the FCRPS action agencies should conduct 

operations in addition to those incorporated in the FCRPS Biological Opinion to address 

the needs of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Oregon is a plaintiff in litigation against 

various federal agencies, including NMFS, challenging the adequacy of measures in the 

FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. NMFS does not agree with Oregon 

regarding the need for or likely efficacy of the additional actions Oregon proposed in 

that litigation, including the actions in the Oregon management unit plan that are not 

part of the FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement. For more detail on these 

actions and NMFS’ view of them, see the regional hydropower strategy in Section 4.3.2. 

The subsections below summarize stratum-level hydropower strategies for Lower 

Columbia River steelhead. 

9.6.4.1 Cascade Winter Steelhead Hydropower Strategy

Passage improvements and hatchery reintroduction programs are the main elements of 

the hydropower strategy for Cascade winter steelhead. Passage will be created or 

improved at projects on the Cowlitz (Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and Tilton populations) 

and Lewis (North Fork Lewis population) rivers, while hatchery reintroduction 

programs will be used to reestablish viable winter steelhead populations in the Upper 

Cowlitz and Cispus subbasins and to improve the persistence probability of the Tilton 

population (from very low to low) and North Fork Lewis (from very low to medium) 

population. These changes will be implemented under the terms of FERC relicensing 

agreements completed with (1) Tacoma Power for the Cowlitz River Project in 2000, and 

(2) PacifiCorp and the Cowlitz PUD for the Lewis River Hydroelectric Projects in 2004. 

Habitat above the dams in these systems is relatively intact, with well-functioning 

watershed processes and a high percentage of federal land ownership. 

In the Cowlitz subbasin, Mayfield Dam blocks winter steelhead access to the upper 

watershed; approximately 40 percent of the spawning and rearing habitat in the Cowlitz 

subbasin is not accessible. Under a trap and haul program begun in 1994, adult winter 

steelhead are collected at the Cowlitz hatcheries and released into the Upper Cowlitz, 

Cispus, and Tilton subbasins. The resulting naturally produced smolts are collected at 

the Cowlitz Falls Fish Collection Facility, acclimated at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery, 

and released in the mainstem Cowlitz (LCFRB 2010a). Passage at these dams is expected 

to be improved at some point as part of the 2000 FERC relicensing agreement.49 Tacoma 

Power will evaluate fish returns and survival through the reservoirs and assess passage 

options. Adult passage will be by trap and haul unless certain settlement agreement 

criteria (fish sorting, productivity, etc.) are met. If they are met, passage at Mayfield 

Dam is likely to be provided via a new fish ladder, whereas passage at the much larger 

Mossyrock Dam likely will be provided by either trap and haul or a tramway. 

 49 As of fall 2010, Tacoma Power had improved downstream passage survival at Mayfield Dam for juvenile 

steelhead from the Tilton winter-run population.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-41

In the North Fork Lewis subbasin, three dams (Merwin, Yale, and Swift) block passage 

to the upper North Fork Lewis, beginning with Merwin Dam at RM 20. As part of the 

2004 FERC relicensing agreement for these dams, reintroduction of winter steelhead into 

habitat upstream of the three dams is being evaluated and is likely to begin in 2012-2013. 

The keys to successful reintroduction will be adequate passage of juveniles and adults to 

and from the upper watershed, hatchery supplementation, and habitat improvements. 

In addition, hydroregulation on the Lewis River has altered the natural flow regime 

below Merwin Dam, and the flow regime will be need to be adjusted to provide 

adequate flows for habitat formation, fish migration, water quality, floodplain 

connectivity, habitat capacity, and sediment transport. However, floodplain and channel 

alterations in the lower river will limit the ability to restore the natural flow regime, and 

flow modifications will need to take place in concert with restoration of lower river 

floodplain function. (LCFRB 2010a)

Maintaining access to headwater spawning areas in the Cowlitz and Lewis systems may 

become increasingly important because the effects of climate change on stream 

temperatures may not be as pronounced there (LCFRB 2010a). 

In the Clackamas subbasin, PGE’s River Mill-Faraday-North Fork Dam complex, which 

has both upstream and downstream passage facilities, impairs downstream steelhead 

passage and may also delay adult upstream passage and reduce spawner distribution 

and success. As part of the 2006 FERC relicensing agreement, PGE agreed to improve 

downstream juvenile mortality through the dam complex to 3 percent or less and has 

already rebuilt the ladder and trap at North Fork Dam. 

9.6.4.2 Cascade Summer Steelhead Hydropower Strategy

There are no tributary hydropower dams in the Kalama, East Fork Lewis, or Washougal 

subbasins. In the North Fork Lewis subbasin, summer steelhead recovery efforts will be 

focused below Merwin Dam. 

9.6.4.3 Gorge Winter and Summer Steelhead Hydropower Strategy

Tributary hydropower impacts for the Hood winter and summer steelhead populations 

will be addressed by the removal of Powerdale Dam. The dam, which was operated by 

PacifiCorp, was removed in 2010 under the terms of a settlement agreement reached in 

2003. The dam had passage systems in place; nevertheless, removal is expected to 

improve upstream and downstream survival, increase access to historical spawning and 

rearing habitat, and reduce hydropower impacts on Hood winter and summer 

populations by 55 percent. There are no tributary dams in the Wind subbasin.

Actions in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement will also provide 

slight improvements in juvenile survival at Bonneville Dam for the Upper Gorge winter 

and Hood winter and summer populations (see the regional hydropower strategy in 

Section 4.3.2). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-42

9.6.5 Harvest Strategy

Before the mid-1970s, steelhead harvest impacts were on the order of 70 percent or more. 

Harvest impacts were reduced in 1975 when the commercial harvest of steelhead in nontreaty fisheries was prohibited, and reduced further in the late 1980s and early 1990s 

through the implementation of mass marking and hatchery-fish-only retention 

requirements. For most populations harvest impacts are now 10 percent or less. Harvest 

impacts to populations above Bonneville Dam are somewhat higher, on the order of 

15 percent or less, as a result of the additional impacts that occur in tribal fisheries.

As discussed in Section 9.4.4, although harvest-related mortality is identified as a 

secondary limiting factor for all populations within the DPS, substantial actions already 

have been implemented to reduce harvest impacts on natural-origin steelhead. Analysis 

in the Oregon and Washington management unit plans determined that maintaining 

steelhead harvest at current levels is consistent with achieving recovery objectives 

(ODFW 2010, LCFRB 2010a). The harvest strategy is to ensure continued regulation of 

fisheries to limit impacts to current levels, using ancillary and precautionary actions as 

described in Section 4.5.2 (the regional harvest strategy). 

The Washington plan recommends maintaining harvest impacts on Cascade winter and 

summer steelhead of between 5 and 10 percent for the 50-year implementation period; 

this will be accomplished through improved monitoring and application of regulations 

in mainstem and tributary fisheries. Oregon did not incorporate any reduction to the 

10 percent baseline harvest impact rate into its threat reductions for winter steelhead 

populations. In addition to maintaining current harvest regulations and impacts, the 

Washington management unit plan recommends (1) continuing to improve gear and 

regulations to minimize incidental impacts to naturally spawning steelhead, 

(2) establishing specific triggers for in-season Columbia River fishery adjustments as 

needed to support lower Columbia River winter steelhead recovery goals and strategies, 

(3) managing Columbia River commercial fisheries by time, area, and gear to target 

hatchery fish and minimize impacts to naturally spawning steelhead, and (4) monitoring 

naturally spawning steelhead encounter rates in tributary recreational fisheries, 

particularly in populations targeted for viability or high persistence probability. 

9.6.5.1 Cascade Winter and Summer Steelhead Harvest Strategy

The DPS-level harvest strategies will benefit populations in the Cascade winter and 

summer strata.

9.6.5.2 Gorge Winter and Summer Steelhead Harvest Strategy

The DPS-level harvest strategies will benefit populations in this stratum. In addition, for 

the Upper Gorge, Wind, and Hood populations, Oregon proposes discussing Zone 6 

fishery impacts with tribes to reduce potential additional impacts. Potential actions

include extending harvest sanctuaries from tributary mouths and modifying season 

length or timing (ODFW 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-43

9.6.6 Hatchery Strategy

The regional hatchery strategy described in Section 4.4.2 summarizes goals and 

approaches relevant to Lower Columbia River steelhead. Details of how the hatchery 

strategy will be implemented in each steelhead stratum will be developed as part of the 

transition schedules, but the subsections below provide some information. 

9.6.6.1 Cascade Winter Steelhead Hatchery Strategy

Hatcheries will be used in reintroducing winter steelhead in the Upper Cowlitz (Upper 

Cowlitz, Cispus, and Tilton populations) and North Fork Lewis subbasins. Hatcheryorigin adult winter steelhead already are being released upstream of dams to spawn 

naturally in the Upper Cowlitz, Cispus, and Tilton rivers; these fish come from hatchery 

programs that were founded with local stock and have not been augmented with nonlocal stocks. Local stocks will also be used to develop hatchery programs that will be 

used to reintroduce winter steelhead to the upper Lewis subbasin. WDFW may also 

consider supplementation programs in some other Cascade populations to bolster 

natural fish numbers above critical levels in selected areas until habitat is restored to 

levels where a population can be self-sustaining. 

The hatchery strategy involves continued hatchery production as mitigation and for 

fishery enhancement of winter steelhead in the Lower Cowlitz, Kalama, East Fork Lewis, 

Salmon Creek, Washougal, Clackamas, and Sandy50 subbasins. Effective control of 

reproductive and competitive interactions between hatchery-origin fish and natural 

populations will be particularly important in these cases, with details varying 

depending on the population’s target status. In addition, although there are no hatchery 

programs located in the Coweeman, hatchery-produced winter steelhead are released 

there for fishery enhancement. 

For the Clackamas population, a pHOS target of 10 percent will be met by reducing 

Eagle Creek winter steelhead hatchery releases (from 150,000 to 100,000 beginning in 

2009). The Clackamas will be managed initially as an integrated program, with a sliding 

scale developed for take of wild winter steelhead broodstock.51 The Sandy subbasin 

winter steelhead program will also be managed as an integrated program, with a sliding 

scale developed for take of wild winter steelhead broodstock. 

The Clackamas subbasin above North Fork Dam will be maintained as a wild fish 

sanctuary. No hatchery winter steelhead are currently released, nor are the expected to 

be released, into the North and South Fork Toutle subbasins. 

 50 The Sandy winter steelhead population was targeted for an 80 percent reduction in hatchery impacts. The 

Oregon management unit plan states that, because of fairly recent changes in the management of the 

hatchery steelhead program, that target has been met, and current stray rates are lower than the 10 percent 

objective for this population (ODFW 2010).

51 ODFW will also explore the feasibility of shifting the Clackamas hatchery winter steelhead program to 

one that holds and rears fish for an extra year to better mimic their natural life cycle (ODFW 2010). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-44

9.6.6.2 Gorge Winter Steelhead Hatchery Strategy

In the Hood subbasin, Oregon proposes to install a floating weir to remove stray 

hatchery winter steelhead and to implement a sliding scale for take of wild winter 

steelhead broodstock for an integrated hatchery program. There are no hatcheries and 

no releases of hatchery-origin steelhead at present in the Upper Gorge tributaries, and 

the Washington plan proposes that this area be maintained as a refuge area for winter 

steelhead (LCFRB Vol. II). In the Lower Gorge, Oregon proposes to investigate placing a 

new weir and trap to sort hatchery-origin winter steelhead from natural-origin winter 

steelhead migrating upstream on Eagle Creek, Tanner Creek, or both. There are no 

hatcheries or winter steelhead releases in the Washington lower Gorge tributaries

currently, and no future releases of hatchery-origin winter steelhead are planned for

these tributaries.

9.6.6.3 Cascade Summer Hatchery Strategy

Fishery enhancement programs are expected to continue in the North Fork Lewis, 

Kalama, East Fork Lewis, and Washougal subbasins. Washington will develop either 

integrated or segregated programs in each of these subbasins to meet criteria 

appropriate to the target status of these populations. 

9.6.6.4 Gorge Summer Hatchery Strategy

The Wind subbasin is expected to be maintained as a refuge area for natural-origin fish. 

The summer steelhead hatchery program in the Hood subbasin was discontinued 

in 2009. No future releases of hatchery-origin summer steelhead are planned for the 

lower Gorge tributaries in Washington.

9.6.7 Predation Strategy

The regional predation strategy (see Section 4.6.2) involves reducing predation by birds, 

fish, and marine mammals and will benefit all Lower Columbia River ESUs, including 

summer and winter steelhead. 

9.6.8 Critical Uncertainties

Each aspect of the steelhead recovery strategy has a number of critical uncertainties. For 

all ESUs, there are uncertainties regarding how habitat actions will translate into 

changes in productivity and capacity (Roni et al. 2011). Prioritizing and identifying next 

steps in resolving uncertainties is a near-term priority. Critical uncertainties specific to 

the Lower Columbia River steelhead recovery strategy include the following:

• Effectiveness of weirs, shifts in production, and other techniques in achieving 

pHOS targets

• Effectiveness of various approaches to developing integrated hatchery/natural 

populations, especially for populations with very low natural-origin abundance

• Effective methods of providing adequate downstream passage efficiency for 

juveniles migrating past tributary dams
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-45

• Effectiveness of hatchery reintroduction programs and the pace of local 

adaptation of reintroduced stocks above tributary dams

• Most appropriate boundary between Mid-Columbia and Lower Columbia River 

steelhead DPSs52

These critical uncertainties represent preliminary priorities identified by Oregon and 

Washington recovery planners and NMFS Northwest Regional Office and Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center staff during a November 2010 workshop. They are preliminary 

priorities only (and are not in ranked order); as described in Chapter 10, additional 

discussion among local recovery planners and NMFS staff will be needed to finalize 

future research priorities for Lower Columbia River steelhead. 

The management unit plans identify more comprehensive critical uncertainties and 

research, monitoring, and evaluation needs that, along with the list above, will provide 

the basis for these future discussions. The Washington management unit plan has a 

discrete section on critical uncertainties for all of the ESUs in general (see Section 9.6 of 

LCFRB 2010a, pp. 9-68 through 9-73), while the Oregon management unit plan embeds 

relevant critical uncertainties within subsections on monitoring and evaluation needs 

related to the four VSP parameters and five ESA listing factors (see Sections 8.4 and 8.5, 

respectively, of ODFW 2010). In addition, in June 2010, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery 

Board completed the Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program for Lower Columbia Salmon 

and Steelhead as a companion to its recovery plan (LCFRB 2010b). This document also 

describes critical uncertainties. The list above does not include critical uncertainties that 

apply to multiple ESUs; these will be discussed and considered as decisions are made in 

implementation. In addition, the critical uncertainties above are of a technical nature; 

there are also many critical uncertainties related to social, political, and economic issues. 

Critical uncertainties are one element of research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) and 

adaptive management, which will be key components of the steelhead recovery strategy 

(see Chapter 10 for more discussion of RME and adaptive management for this 

recovery plan). 

9.7 Delisting Criteria Conclusion for LCR Steelhead

The requirement for determining that a species no longer requires the protection of the 

ESA is that the species is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future, based on evaluation of the listing factors 

specified in ESA section 4(a)(1). To remove the Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS 

from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (that is, to 

 52 In its 2011 5-year review (76 Federal Register 50448), NMFS discussed uncertainties regarding the most 

appropriate boundary between the Mid-Columbia and Lower Columbia River steelhead DPSs. New 

information, primarily DNA microsatellite variation, underscores the transitional nature of populations in 

this area and the uncertainty associated with the ESU and DPS boundaries there. Given all this information, 

it might be reasonable either to reassign the White Salmon and Klickitat River steelhead from the Middle 

Columbia River DPS to the Lower Columbia River DPS or to maintain the existing DPS boundary. NMFS 

recommended maintaining the existing boundary but will reexamine the issue in future 5-year reviews as 

new information becomes available.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-46

delist the DPS), NMFS must determine that the DPS, as evaluated under the ESA listing 

factors, is no longer likely to become endangered. 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the maximum extent practicable, incorporate 

objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a determination in 

accordance with the provisions of the ESA that the species be removed from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The 

recovery criteria in this plan (both biological and threats criteria) meet this 

statutory requirement. 

As described in Section 9.3, if the scenario in Table 9-4 were achieved, it would meet or 

exceed the WLC TRT’s viability criteria, particularly in the Cascade winter stratum but 

also in the Cascade summer stratum (see Table 9-8).53 Exceeding the criteria in the 

Cascade stratum was intentional on the part of local recovery planners to compensate 

for uncertainties about the feasibility of meeting the WLC TRT’s criteria in the Gorge 

stratum, in particular the questions raised by Oregon about the feasibility of meeting the 

target status for the Hood summer population. 

Table 9-8 

Steelhead Recovery Scenario Scores Relative to WLC TRT Viability Criteria

Species Number of Primary Populations Stratum Average Criteria

Cascade Gorge Total Cascade Gorge

Winter n ≥ high 9 2 11 Avg. score 2.61 2.33

Steelhead

TRT criterion 

(n ≥ 2) met? Yes Yes

TRT criterion 

(avg. ≥ 2.25) 

met?

Yes Yes

Summer n ≥ high 3 2 5 Avg. score 2.38 3.50

Steelhead

TRT criterion 

(n ≥ 2) met? Yes Yes

TRT criterion 

(avg. ≥ 2.25) 

met?

Yes Yes

Source: Based on LCFRB (2010a), Table 4-7.

Oregon recovery planners raised questions about the feasibility of meeting the recovery 

target of high persistence probability for both the Clackamas winter and Hood summer 

steelhead populations (ODFW 2010, Table 6-36). The Oregon management unit plan 

states that achieving a high probability of persistence for the Clackamas population 

would require more tributary habitat improvements than are believe feasible (ODFW 

2010, Table 3-30). Because the recovery scenario targets nine steelhead populations for 

high persistence probability in the Cascade stratum, the WLC TRT criteria would likely 

 53 As discussed in Section 2.5.4, the TRT’s criteria for high probability of stratum persistence require that two 

or more populations be viable and that the average score for all populations in the stratum be 2.25 or higher. 

In the Cascade winter stratum, nine populations are targeted for high or very high persistence probability, 

and, using the WLC TRT’s scoring system, the average viability score for all populations in the stratum 

would be 2.61.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-47

be met even without achieving high persistence probability for the Cascade 

winter population. 

Oregon recovery planners’ uncertainty regarding the Hood summer steelhead 

population is based in part on questions about the feasibility of meeting the habitat and 

hatchery threat reduction targets for this population (ODFW 2010) and in part on 

questions raised by both Oregon and Washington management unit planners regarding 

Gorge stratum and population delineations and the historical role of the Gorge 

populations (LCFRB 2010a, ODFW 2010). These questions include whether the Gorge 

populations were highly persistent historically, whether they functioned as independent 

populations within their stratum in the same way that the Coast and Cascade 

populations did, and whether the Gorge stratum itself should be considered a separate 

stratum from the Cascade stratum. 

As discussed in Section 3.2, NMFS has considered the WLC TRT’s viability criteria (from 

McElhany et al. 2003 and 2006 and summarized in Table 2-3), the additional 

recommendations in McElhany et al. (2007), the recovery scenarios and population-level 

goals in the management unit plans, and the questions raised regarding the historical 

role of the Gorge strata. 

NMFS has concluded that the WLC TRT’s criteria adequately describe the characteristics 

of a DPS that meet or exceed the requirement for determining that a species no longer 

needs the protection of the ESA. These criteria provide a framework within which to 

evaluate specific recovery scenarios. NMFS has evaluated the recovery scenario 

presented in the management unit plans for Lower Columbia River steelhead 

(summarized in Table 3-1 of this recovery plan ) and the associated population-level 

abundance and productivity goals (see Section 9.3) and has concluded that they also 

adequately describe the characteristics of a DPS that no longer needs the protections of 

the ESA. NMFS endorses the Lower Columbia River steelhead recovery scenario and the 

associated population-level goals in the management unit plans (summarized in Table 3-

1 and Section 9.3) as one of multiple possible scenarios consistent with delisting.

NMFS also agrees with the management unit planners that the historical role of the 

Gorge populations and strata merits further examination. The extent to which 

compensation in the Cascade stratum is ultimately considered necessary to achieve an 

acceptably low risk at the DPS level will depend on how questions regarding the 

historical role of the Gorge populations are resolved. 

NMFS therefore has developed the following delisting criteria for the Lower Columbia 

River steelhead DPS. (NMFS has amended the WLC TRT’s criteria to incorporate the 

concept that each stratum should have a probability of persistence consistent with its 

historical condition, thus allowing for resolution of questions regarding the Gorge 

strata):

1. All strata that historically existed have a high probability of persistence or have a 

probability of persistence consistent with their historical condition. High 

probability of stratum persistence is defined as: 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

9-48

a. At least two populations in the stratum have at least a 95 percent probability 

of persistence over a 100-year time frame (i.e., two populations with a score 

of 3.0 or higher based on the TRT’s scoring system). 

b. Other populations in the stratum have persistence probabilities consistent 

with a high probability of stratum persistence (i.e., the average of all stratum 

population scores is 2.25 or higher, based on the TRT’s scoring system). (See 

Section 2.6 for a brief discussion of the TRT’s scoring system.) 

c. Populations targeted for a high probability of persistence are distributed in a 

way that minimizes risk from catastrophic events, maintains migratory 

connections among populations, and protects within-stratum diversity. 

A probability of persistence consistent with historical condition refers to the 

concept that strata that historically were small or had complex population 

structures may not have met Criteria A through C, above, but could still be 

considered sufficiently viable if they provide a contribution to overall ESU 

viability similar to their historical contribution.

2. The threats criteria described in Section 3.2.2 have been met.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-1

10. Adaptive Management and Research, Monitoring, 

and Evaluation

The long-term success of recovery efforts for Lower Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead will depend on the strategic use of research, monitoring, and evaluation 

(RME) to provide useful information to decision makers within an adaptive 

management framework. Research, monitoring, and evaluation programs associated 

with recovery plans need to gather the information that will be most useful in tracking 

and evaluating implementation and action effectiveness and assessing the status of 

listed species. Planners and managers then need to use the information collected to 

guide and refine recovery strategies and actions. These elements of recovery plans are 

crucial for salmon and steelhead because of the complexity of the species’ life cycles, the 

range of factors affecting survival, and the limits on our understanding of how specific 

actions affect species’ characteristics and survival.

Research, monitoring, and evaluation for salmon and steelhead are complicated by the 

existence of multiple entities in the region conducting relevant monitoring. Within the 

Columbia Basin and the Lower Columbia recovery subdomain, many organizations, 

including federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, conduct various kinds of 

monitoring. Developing regional coordination for these efforts is essential if we are to 

design and implement sound monitoring programs that provide relevant, valid, and 

accessible data and use limited resources most effectively. 

The management unit recovery plans contain or will contain specific RME plans for their 

areas. These RME plans are based on regional guidance for adaptive management and 

RME and will guide recovery planning RME efforts and funding in their respective 

areas, within a context of ongoing regional guidance and coordination. 

This chapter provides the following information: 

• A brief description of the concept of adaptive management and a brief overview of 

salmon and steelhead recovery plan RME needs

• A summary of regional guidance for adaptive management and RME

• An overview of the RME components of each management unit plan and the 

Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a)

• An overview of RME regional coordination efforts and needs1

10.1 Overview of Adaptive Management and RME Needs

Adaptive management is the process of adjusting management actions and/or overall 

approach based on new information. Adaptive management works by coupling decision 

 1 For a list of preliminary critical uncertainties for each ESU, see Sections 6.6.8, 7.4.3.8, 7.5.3.8, 7.6.3.6, 8.6.8, 

and 9.6.7.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-2

making with data collection and evaluation. Most importantly, it works by offering an 

explicit process through which alternative approaches and actions can be proposed, 

prioritized, implemented, and evaluated (NMFS 2007). Successful adaptive management 

requires that monitoring and evaluation plans be incorporated into overall 

implementation plans for recovery actions. These plans should link monitoring and 

evaluation results explicitly to feedback on the design and implementation of actions. In 

adaptive management, recovery strategies are treated like working hypotheses that can 

be acted upon, tested, and revised (Lee 1999). Figure 10-1 illustrates the adaptive 

management process. 

Figure 10-1. The Adaptive Management Cycle

Several types of monitoring are needed to support adaptive management (NMFS 2007):

• Implementation monitoring and compliance monitoring, which are used to 

evaluate whether recovery plan actions are being implemented as directed.

• Status and trend monitoring, which assesses changes in the status of an ESU and 

its component populations, and changes in the status or significance of the threats 

to an ESU.

• Effectiveness monitoring, which tests hypotheses about cause-and-effect 

relationships and determines via research whether an action is effective and 

should be continued.

It is also important to explicitly address the many unknowns in salmon recovery—the 

“critical uncertainties” that make management decisions much harder. Doing so will 

involve prioritizing critical uncertainties and ensuring that appropriate research is 

conducted that can inform managers on the questions (NMFS 2007). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-3

Finally, given the wide array of organizations involved in salmon recovery in the 

Columbia Basin, including groups from federal agencies, states, and tribes, the task of 

coordinating all the information being gathered and making it available to decision 

makers throughout the region is daunting. During the last decade, substantial progress 

has been made in standardizing fisheries data collection and storage methods.

10.2 Guidance for Adaptive Management and RME

NMFS and other entities have developed documents to guide and coordinate salmon 

and steelhead RME efforts throughout the Columbia Basin and the Pacific Northwest. 

Overall, the goal of these guidance documents is to ensure that monitoring programs are 

designed to provide the information NMFS and others need to understand the effects of 

recovery actions and evaluate the status of salmon and steelhead populations and the 

threats they face. Another objective of the guidance documents has been to ensure that 

data is managed, shared, and integrated in a cost-effective manner. The primary 

guidance documents are described briefly below. 

10.2.1 Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: 

Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance

In 2007, the NMFS Northwest Region released Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed 

Salmon and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance (NMFS 2007). 

This document describes the questions NMFS asks in evaluating species status and 

making listing and delisting decisions. It offers conceptual-level guidance, not specific 

instructions, on gathering the information that will be most useful in tracking progress 

and assessing the status of listed species. 

As outlined in the document, a delisting decision is based on evaluation of both the 

ESU’s biological status and the extent to which the threats facing the ESU have been 

addressed. The document spells out the questions that need to be answered through 

RME to satisfy the requirements for each component of such a decision. These 

components are displayed graphically in the form of a “listing status decision

framework” (Figure 10-2). 

The document emphasizes that adaptive management is an experimental approach in 

which the assumptions underlying recovery strategies and actions are clearly stated and 

subject to evaluation (NMFS 2007). It further states that a monitoring and evaluation 

plan to support adaptive management should provide (1) a clear statement of the 

metrics and indicators by which progress toward achieving goals can be tracked, (2) a 

plan for tracking such metrics and indicators, and (3) a decision framework through 

which new information from monitoring and evaluation can be used to adjust strategies 

or actions aimed at achieving the plan’s goals. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-4

Figure 10-2. NMFS Listing Status Decision Framework

The document also discusses the various types of monitoring needed for salmon 

recovery, categorized as status and trend monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, 

validation monitoring, implementation monitoring, and research on critical 

uncertainties. 

• Status and trend monitoring. Status monitoring is used to characterize existing 

conditions and establish a baseline for future comparisons. For monitoring of 

salmon and steelhead population status, the parameters of interest are abundance, 

productivity, diversity, and spatial structure. Parameters also need to be 

established to monitor the status of threats to salmon and steelhead (e.g., habitat, 

hydropower, hatcheries, and harvest). Trend monitoring involves measurements 

taken at regular time or space intervals to assess the long-term or large-scale trend 

in a particular parameter (NMFS 2007). 

• Effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring evaluates the direct effect of 

management actions. Success can be measured against reference areas, baseline 

conditions, or desired future conditions. Effectiveness monitoring can be 

implemented at the scale of individual actions, suites of actions across space, or 

for an entire strategy consisting of multiple actions at a single location. 

• Validation monitoring. Validation monitoring answers the question: Did the 

management actions create the intended outcome? This question often involves 

evaluating the effects of numerous projects on a watershed or species. An example 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-5

would be evaluating whether the cumulative effects of habitat restoration actions 

in a specific river basin resulted in increased production of juvenile salmon. 

• Implementation monitoring. Implementation monitoring determines whether 

activities were carried out as planned and is generally conducted as an 

administrative review or site visit. This type of monitoring cannot directly link 

restoration actions to physical, chemical, or biological responses because none of 

these parameters are measured (NMFS 2007). 

• Research on critical uncertainties. The adaptive management guidance notes 

that research on critical uncertainties may seem expensive or unnecessary but in 

the long run will reduce monitoring and implementation costs (NMFS 2007). 

Finally, the adaptive management guidance (NMFS 2007) discusses considerations for 

prioritizing monitoring and examines the consequences of different sorts of incomplete 

data. Management and delisting decisions often must be made with incomplete 

information. Different types of incomplete information pose correspondingly different 

types of risks for delisting decisions. This discussion is intended to help planners 

consider how their own implementation and monitoring decisions may affect NMFS’ 

assessment of ESU status. 

10.2.2 Guidance for Monitoring Recovery of Pacific Northwest Salmon and 

Steelhead 

Another document from the NMFS Northwest Region, Guidance for Monitoring Recovery 

of Pacific Northwest Salmon and Steelhead (Crawford and Rumsey 2011), builds on the 2007 

adaptive management guidance document with specific recommendations for 

monitoring, data collection, and reporting ESA information (Crawford and Rumsey 

2011). NMFS intends this document to assist those involved with salmon recovery in 

understanding the desired level of monitoring and the associated level of certainty 

needed at the regional, local, and project levels to support ESA status evaluations and 

listing and delisting decisions. NMFS also intends the guidance to assist in the 

development and implementation of a regional monitoring strategy that will provide the 

necessary monitoring information in the most cost-effective way for the region. The 

document does not establish new requirements or modify any existing requirements. 

The recommendations included are for federal and state agencies, tribes, local 

governments, and watershed organizations. Recommendations include monitoring that 

addresses all of the viable salmonid population (VSP) criteria and the threats to salmon 

and steelhead (organized under the five ESA listing factors). The guidance also makes 

recommendations for setting up regional databases and coordinating regional data 

collection so that the various agencies and tribes involved in salmon recovery can share 

data as well as report it efficiently to NMFS. 

Recommendations for VSP monitoring address adult spawner abundance, productivity, 

spatial distribution, and diversity. Abundance considerations include use of a sampling 

design that has known precision and accuracy, monitoring of hatchery contributions, 

and a goal of a coefficient of variation of 15 percent or less for all populations. 

Productivity considerations include (1) developing at least 12 brood years of spawner 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-6

information to allow use of the geometric mean of recruits per spawner to develop 

productivity estimates, and (2) obtaining estimates of juvenile migrants for at least one 

significant population within each stratum. The guidance recommends certainty levels 

for detecting changes in spatial distribution and, for diversity, suggests short-term 

strategies (use of spawn timing, age distribution, and other observations) and long-term 

strategies (genetic baseline information for each population). 

Habitat-related recommendations include use of a generalized random tessellation 

stratified (GRTS) sampling program coupled with remote sensing of land use and land 

cover and coordinated with fish-in/fish-out monitoring where possible. Implementation 

of habitat restoration efforts should be capable of being reported (e.g., using the data 

fields in the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund [PCSRF] project tracking database) 

and correlated with limiting factors as defined in the NMFS data dictionary (Hamm 

2012). Reach-scale effectiveness monitoring should be conducted for various habitat 

improvement categories using a Before and After Control Impact (BACI) design 

wherever possible. There should also be at least one intensively monitored watershed 

(IMW) in each recovery subdomain. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state 

agencies, and local governments should monitor stormwater and cropland runoff for 

concentrations of toxic contaminants and to identify their sources. For monitoring of 

hydropower-related threats, the guidance largely refers to specific requirements that 

have been written into FERC licenses. 

For monitoring of harvest status and trends, the NMFS monitoring guidance notes the 

need for improved estimates of population-level harvest impacts, improved models for 

predicting harvest impacts to populations, and improved monitoring of incidental take 

and exploitation rate management. 

For disease and predation, the guidance suggests that the status of existing invasive 

species should be compiled for each ESU/DPS and that watershed-level assessments 

should be conducted for species known to affect salmon and steelhead.

For threats related to hatchery production, the guidance recommends that states and 

tribes be able to determine annually and with known precision the proportion of 

hatchery origin spawners (pHOS) for each population. The proportion of natural 

influence (PNI) for primary populations with supplementation programs should be 

calculated periodically. Hatchery operators should complete Hatchery and Genetics 

Management Plans (HGMPs), submit them to NMFS for approval, and track and report 

on their implementation. Hatchery action effectiveness monitoring should include 

development of large-scale treatment/reference design to evaluate long-term trends in 

abundance and productivity of supplemented populations. 

To evaluate the adequacy of regulatory actions, the guidance notes the need for a 

recovery action tracking system capable of recording whether entities have implemented 

regulatory actions in the recovery plans. It also suggests development of a randomized 

sampling program to test whether permits issued under regulatory programs designed 

to protect riparian and instream habitat are in compliance and adequately enforced.

Noting the regional needs to coordinate data collection, evaluation, and reporting, the 

guidance also makes the following recommendations: (1) regional environmental 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-7

databases should be coordinated such that information can be readily reported to NMFS 

and shared among participants, (2) methods and calculations used to assess and 

evaluate data should be transparent and repeatable, (3) all project tracking should be 

consistent with the PCSRF project tracking database and the NMFS data dictionary, 

(4) regional salmon recovery partners should build a distributed data system that can 

communicate among agencies and report to the public, (5) sampling programs for 

habitat, water quality, and fish VSP criteria should be coordinated to fit within an 

integrated master sample program. 

10.2.3 Other RME Guidance

A number of other regional efforts provide guidance relevant to developing RME and 

adaptive management programs for Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead. These 

include Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 2009 amendments and 

recommendations for implementing RME for the 2008 NOAA Fisheries FCRPS 

Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 2008f and 2010a).

10.2.3.1 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 2009 Amendments

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program 

emphasizes implementation of fish and wildlife projects based on needs identified in 

subbasin plans, federal biological opinions, ESA recovery plans, and the 2008 Fish 

Accords signed by federal agencies, Indian tribes, and the states of Idaho and Montana. 

The program amendments also establish reporting guidelines and the use of adaptive 

management to guide decision making and emphasize a more focused monitoring and 

evaluation framework coupled with a commitment to use the information obtained to 

make better decisions. The program includes general guidelines for monitoring and 

adaptive management in the Columbia Basin as well as a discussion of the need to 

develop a monitoring, evaluation, research, and reporting plan. A description of the 

program is available at http://www.nwCouncil.org/library/2009/2009-09/Default.asp. 

10.2.3.2 Recommendations for Implementing Research, Monitoring and Evaluation for 

the 2008 NOAA Fisheries FCRPS Biological Opinion (AA/NOAA/NPCC RM&E 

Workgroups, June 2009 and May 2010)

Completion of the 2008 Biological Opinion on the operation of the Federal Columbia 

River Power System (FCRPS) stimulated collaboration related to RME in the mainstem 

lower Columbia River and estuary. The 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 

Supplement recommended a complex suite of actions to improve survival of salmonids 

through the migratory corridor of the Columbia River and to improve habitat below 

Bonneville Dam used for resting, feeding, the physiological transition for fresh to salt 

water, and migration. Subsequently, federal, state, and tribal entities organized technical 

work groups to determine how best to implement the recommendations in the Biological 

Opinion and its Supplement and how to conduct RME to support them. Various 

guidance documents have been produced through this process and are available at 

http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/ResearchReportsPublications.aspx.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-8

10.2.3.3 Salmon Monitoring Advisor

The Salmon Monitoring Advisor is a website developed by the Pacific Northwest 

monitoring community to provide a comprehensive, technically rigorous framework to 

help practitioners, decision makers, and funders design monitoring programs. The 

monitoring advisor is a web-based system that synthesizes a wide array of information 

into a systematic framework that offers an organized, structured procedure to help users 

efficiently design and implement reliable, informative, and cost-effective salmon 

monitoring programs. It provides advice and guidelines to help users systematically 

work through the numerous steps involved in designing, implementing, and analyzing 

results from monitoring programs to meet particular monitoring objectives. The address 

for this site is https://salmonmonitoringadvisor.org/.

10.3 RME Plans for the Washington, Oregon, and White Salmon 

Management Unit Plans

Within the framework of the guidance described above, local recovery planners have or 

will develop RME programs for their management unit recovery plans. These plans will 

provide conceptual-level guidance to RME implementation efforts at the local and 

regional scale. Implementation of these RME plans will also be influenced by the 

regional coordination efforts described below. Management unit RME plans are briefly 

summarized below; readers should consult the management unit plans themselves 

for detail. 

10.3.1 Washington Management Unit

The Washington management unit plan (LCFRB 2010a) contains a monitoring and 

research chapter (see LCFRB 2010a, Chapter 9), which is supplemented by the Research, 

Monitoring, & Evaluation Program for Lower Columbia Salmon & Steelhead (LCFRB 2010b). 

Together these documents provide the framework for a systematic approach to RME in 

the LCFRB planning area. 

Both documents describe general RME strategies for (1) biological status and trend 

monitoring, (2) habitat status and trend monitoring, (3) implementation/compliance 

monitoring, (4) action effectiveness monitoring, and (5) uncertainty and validation 

research. For each of these monitoring elements, the documents identify objectives, 

strategies, indicators, sampling and analytical design, and implementation actions 

needed for the RME program. In addition, the RME program document (LCFRB 2010b) 

contains inventories of available information and data and identifies critical information 

needs and priorities.2 Both documents also address information reporting strategies. 

Because there is significant overlap between the two documents, they are referred to 

collectively here as the LCFRB RME program. In general, the LCFRB RME program 

identifies what needs to be done and how to do it but does not address specific 

implementation details such as desired confidence levels, statistical power, data 

collection protocols, and sample sizes. (For biological status and trends and habitat 

status and trends, such implementation details are being developed through the Pacific 

 2 In particular, see Appendix B, “Detailed Inventory of Ongoing Monitoring Activities,” and Appendix D, 

“Gap Analysis of Biological Monitoring Programs.”
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-9

Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership’s Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring 

process, described below in Section 10.6.2).

The LCFRB RME program is intended to integrate with and complement other state and 

regional RME efforts for salmon and steelhead. Its goal is to provide a template for 

action and overall guidance to the extensive group of participants involved in 

implementation of the LCFRB plan. Specific elements are described briefly below. 

10.3.1.1 Biological Status Monitoring

The LCFRB RME program’s strategic approach for biological status monitoring is that 

while the status of every population needs to be assessed, all populations do not need to 

be monitored. The program advocates assigning the highest priorities for monitoring to 

populations targeted for high persistence probability and large improvements, and 

ensuring that populations selected for intensive monitoring represent all strata. For 

sampling and analytical design, the program recommends a stratified, representative, 

multi-level sampling framework. Such a sampling design would provide information on 

every population but sample different populations at different intensities and be 

designed to ensure representative coverage of all ESUs. 

The program also identifies specific needs for a comprehensive natural coho sampling 

program, expanded adult and juvenile chum sampling efforts, and augmented sampling 

for adult and juvenile fall Chinook and winter steelhead.

10.3.1.2 Habitat Status Monitoring

The LCFRB RME program recommends monitoring stream corridor and landscape-scale 

habitat status as well as water quantity and quality. For stream habitat the strategic 

approach is to use a rotating panel of habitat samples to produce evaluations relative to 

baseline conditions every 12 years. The program also calls for assessing landscape 

condition at 12-year intervals, with landscape-scale information to be compiled 

uniformly across the entire study area. The primary focus of the LCFRB water quantity 

and water quality RME program is to characterize conditions for salmon and watershed 

health relative to a baseline at listing. The plan calls for comprehensive assessments of 

water quality and quantity status and trends at 12-year intervals. 

10.3.1.3 Implementation and Compliance Monitoring

The LCFRB RME program identifies the need for implementation and compliance 

monitoring to determine whether recovery actions have been implemented as planned. 

The program proposes that this be accomplished by having implementing partners 

evaluate and report on progress in implementation through a centralized database 

system, called SalmonPORT, to be developed and maintained by LCFRB. 

10.3.1.4 Action Effectiveness Monitoring

The LCFRB RME program addresses action effectiveness monitoring for actions in the 

categories of stream habitat, hydropower, fisheries, hatcheries, ecological interactions, 

and mainstem/estuary habitat. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-10

• Stream Habitat. For stream habitat, the overall approach is to complete 

comprehensive assessments of habitat action effectiveness every 6 years. The 

strategy includes monitoring the effectiveness of specific types of habitat actions, 

developing and maintaining an inventory of habitat-related actions, and 

intensively monitoring a subset of habitat actions using formal statistical research 

design methods. For sampling and analytical design, the plan generally adopts 

monitoring designs and protocols developed by the Washington Salmon 

Recovery Funding Board. 

• Hydropower. For hydropower actions, effectiveness monitoring is intended to 

determine whether hydropower actions for fish protection, restoration, and 

mitigation reduce or limit effects on natural-origin fish to levels consistent with 

conservation and recovery. The strategy calls for evaluating action effectiveness 

for passage, habitat protection and restoration, reintroduction, and other 

mitigation actions at all significant tributary and mainstem facilities every 

6 years, using criteria as established in FERC licenses, biological opinions, and 

settlement agreements. 

• Harvest. The overall objectives for fisheries action effectiveness monitoring 

include determining whether impacts are limited to prescribed levels and 

consistent with long-term recovery goals. The strategic approach is to monitor 

annual impacts and complete comprehensive assessments at 6-year intervals.

• Hatcheries. Overall objectives for hatchery action effectiveness monitoring 

include monitoring to determine whether hatchery impacts on each population 

are limited to prescribed levels and whether hatchery performance is consistent 

with goals for each hatchery program. The overall strategy is to monitor each 

hatchery program as well as the annual incidence of natural spawning by 

hatchery-origin fish and to complete comprehensive assessments of hatchery 

action effectiveness at 6-year intervals. Specific criteria for each program are to be 

developed in Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans. 

• Ecological Interactions. The strategy for ecological interactions includes 

monitoring the effectiveness of actions addressing non-native species and 

predation by northern pikeminnow, marine mammals, and birds and developing 

6-year summary evaluations.

• Mainstem/Estuary. The LCFRB RME program cites the estuary RME program 

developed by Johnson et al. to provide status monitoring, action effectiveness 

monitoring, and uncertainties research.

10.3.1.5 Research Needs

The LCFRB RME program identifies specific research needs for salmon population 

status, stream habitat and watershed health, hydropower, fisheries, hatcheries, 

ecological interactions, and the mainstem/estuary. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-11

10.3.1.6 Data Management

The LCFRB RME program identifies a need for a data management needs assessment. It 

also notes the need to develop and maintain regionally standardized datasets and a data 

storage and management system, along with a need to produce and distribute regular 

progress reports and coordinate with other Columbia Basin efforts. 

10.3.1.7 Programmatic Evaluation

The LCFRB RME program makes recommendations for programmatic evaluation, or 

adaptive management. 

10.3.2 Oregon Management Unit

The Oregon management unit plan also contains a chapter devoted to research, 

monitoring, and evaluation (see ODFW 2010, Chapter 8). This chapter outlines the 

research, monitoring, and evaluation needs of the plan as they pertain to biological 

criteria (i.e., population VSP parameters) and threats (as organized under the ESA listing 

factors). It also describes how Oregon will incorporate RME into an adaptive 

management framework. The ODFW monitoring plan is based closely on the NMFS 

(2007) guidance document. It is organized around the key questions, as identified in the 

NMFS document, that must be answered for delisting decisions. It also includes the 

analytical framework Oregon intends to use to answer those key questions, along with 

measurable criteria against which the state intends to measure progress toward those 

goals. Like the LCFRB plan, the ODFW plan addresses status and trend monitoring, 

implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and critical uncertainty research. 

10.3.2.1 Biological Status Monitoring

The Oregon management unit plan describes biological status monitoring needs for 

population abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. Included are 

decisions and key questions for evaluating population status as it pertains to each of the 

four VSP parameters, as well as analytical guidelines and measurable criteria. In general, 

decisions and key questions are derived from TRT documents and the Oregon 

management unit plan. The plan identifies a need for annual benchmarks of abundance 

and productivity based on annual, scaled estimates of spawner abundance, harvest of 

natural-origin fish, age at return, and an index of climate impact. The plan proposes to 

develop these annual estimates through spatially balanced, random surveys based on 

the generalized random tessellation stratified (GRTS) technique and using field 

protocols developed by ODFW. 

For spatial structure, the plan identifies a need for annual estimates of the distribution 

and density of natural-origin spawning adults for each population (and for annual 

monitoring of juveniles at the stratum scale), as well as for 5-year assessments of habitat 

conditions throughout the accessible distribution of each population. The plan proposes 

spatially balanced, random surveys based on the GRTS technique and using ODFW 

protocols to obtain these estimates. In addition, the plan identifies a need for annual 

monitoring of streamflow. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-12

For diversity, the plan identifies a need for periodic monitoring of key life history 

characteristics of each population; annual monitoring of spatial distribution, abundance, 

and origin of adult spawners in each population; hatchery monitoring; genetic marker 

monitoring; and periodic assessment of habitat diversity, occupancy, and anthropogenic 

changes to habitat and the environment. 

The plan also calls for fish-in/fish-out (i.e., life-cycle) monitoring in at least one 

subwatershed in each stratum to provide marine survival estimates and another view of 

freshwater survival and productivity. 

The plan describes a strategic approach to biological status monitoring that includes:

(1) documenting the precision and bias associated with various monitoring protocols, 

(2) implementing GRTS or census-based spawning surveys where possible and using 

adult trapping facilities where necessary to provide population-level information on 

VSP parameters, and (3) using GRTS surveys to provide stratum-level information on 

juvenile abundance and, in at least one subwatershed, monitoring (via traps) adults 

in/juveniles out to provide an estimate of freshwater productivity. The chapter also 

describes how ODFW will prioritize resources under limited or fluctuating funding 

scenarios, including populations that will be cut from RME when resources are 

inadequate.

10.3.2.2 Monitoring Related to Listing Factors

The Oregon management unit plan discusses monitoring needs related to threats as 

organized under the five ESA listing factors. For each listing factor, the plan identifies 

the decision and key questions for delisting and status assessment (based on the NMFS 

2007 guidance document) and discusses monitoring needs for status and trends, action 

effectiveness, and implementation. Discussion of status and trend monitoring includes 

identification of measurable criteria (metrics and evaluation thresholds), analytical 

procedures, and specific RME needs. 

• Habitat. For habitat status and trend monitoring, the plan identifies a need for 5-

year estimates of the spatial pattern and status of specific habitat attributes for 

each population as well as annual assessments of the status and spatial pattern of 

water quality for each population. The plan calls for these to be determined using 

spatially balanced, random surveys based on the GRTS technique and using 

ODFW or Oregon Department of Environmental Quality protocols. The plan also 

identifies the need for annual assessments of the status and spatial pattern of 

streamflow for each population. 

In addition to this 5-year monitoring, the plan calls for annual assessments at the 

stratum scale. Annual assessments are conducted during the summer; after 

5 years, they provide a dense enough sample to characterize summer habitat 

conditions by population. This information complements the 5-year surveys, 

which are conducted in winter to characterize conditions during that season.

For habitat implementation and compliance monitoring, the plan notes the needs 

for annual assessments of (1) compliance with existing habitat protection rules 

and regulations, (2) implementation of habitat best management practices, and 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-13

(3) implementation of habitat recovery actions. For habitat action effectiveness 

monitoring, the plan advocates use of intensively monitored watersheds (IMWs) 

as well as site-specific monitoring of habitat protection and BMPs and habitat 

restoration actions. 

• Hydropower. For hydropower-related monitoring, the plan generally defers to 

the Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project Fish Passage and Protection Plan

(Portland General Electric Company, 2006). Analytical procedures and RME 

needs for Laurance Lake Dam are to be determined.3

• Harvest. For monitoring related to the impacts of harvest, the plan identifies the 

need for annual estimates of mortality that is due to harvest for each population 

and annual estimates of the marine survival rates of natural-origin coho salmon 

(by monitoring adults in and smolts out of one intensively monitored watershed 

per stratum). For harvest implementation and compliance monitoring, the plan 

identifies a need for annual estimates of mortality, and for evaluation of whether 

managers meet targets for implementing mark-selective Chinook salmon 

fisheries and for shifting spring Chinook salmon commercial and tribal harvest 

to terminal areas during low-return years. For effectiveness monitoring related to 

harvest, the plan identifies a need to conduct studies to assess the effectiveness of 

harvest management actions needed to achieve harvest impact goals. 

• Hatcheries. For status and trend monitoring related to hatcheries, the plan 

identifies the need for annual assessments of the abundance, distribution, and 

origin of hatchery fish spawning in each population, annual monitoring of the 

spatial and temporal distribution of juvenile fish released by hatchery programs, 

and all of the status and trend monitoring described for fish abundance and 

productivity. The plan also describes the need for monitoring and 

documentation that demonstrate that HGMPs have been implemented and 

effective. 

• Disease/predation. For status and trends related to predation (by Caspian terns, 

double-crested cormorants, marine mammals, and northern pikeminnow), the 

plan identifies a need for monitoring of predation associated with anthropogenic 

alterations in the Columbia River estuary, at Bonneville Dam, and in Bonneville 

Reservoir. For issues related to disease, the plan calls for sampling of natural 

populations in and near hatcheries to determine occurrence of pathogens that 

may cause disease. The plan also calls for watershed-scale sampling for the 

occurrence of invasive aquatic species known to affect salmon and steelhead. 

Implementation and compliance monitoring and effectiveness monitoring needs 

for predation and disease are to be determined. 

• Regulatory mechanisms. For monitoring related to regulatory mechanisms, the 

plan describes the need for a system that tracks whether regulatory actions called 

for in the plan are being implemented. It also identifies a need for a randomized 

sampling program to test whether permits issued under regulatory programs 

 3 Monitoring of hydropower-related facilities in the Sandy and Hood subbasins was not addressed because 

the dams have been removed.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-14

designed to protect riparian and instream habitat are being issued as designed 

and being enforced.

The plan also identifies specific critical uncertainties for each of the VSP parameters and 

for each of the listing factors and includes an appendix describing existing monitoring 

programs (see ODFW 2010, Appendix J). 

Like the LCFRB plan, the Oregon management unit plan discusses the need for and 

benefits of integrating monitoring plans throughout the region. As a step toward such 

integration, the plan advocates development of a survey design process that promotes 

data sharing, agreement on a core set of monitoring questions, coordination of 

monitoring activities, and development either of common protocols and methods or of 

ways to “crosswalk” data derived from different protocols. The plan also notes the need 

for improved data management and access through development of distributed data 

systems and data management infrastructure. 

10.3.3 White Salmon Management Unit

The White Salmon management unit plan (NMFS 2013) contains a brief discussion of 

monitoring, intended to provide a framework for the development of a detailed RME 

plan for the White Salmon, and identifies several critical uncertainties and actions 

needed to address them.4 The management unit plan also notes that various monitoring 

efforts are under way and that there is a need for a coordinated monitoring program, 

and it includes some notes on initial steps in designing such a program. It also discusses 

adaptive management in general, identifies in-basin and out-of-subbasin research needs, 

discusses the various types of monitoring needed (implementation, status/trend, 

effectiveness), and the need for consistency/coordination with other monitoring 

programs. The plan also notes that the reintroduction plan for White Salmon River 

salmon will rely heavily on results of research and be guided by ongoing monitoring 

and evaluation.

10.4 Estuary Module RME

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) also includes a chapter that describes RME needed to assess juvenile salmonid 

performance in the estuary and to evaluate the effectiveness of the 23 management 

actions described in the module. Like the management unit RME plans, this chapter 

notes the need for various types of monitoring (status and trends, action effectiveness 

research, critical uncertainties research, implementation and compliance monitoring) 

and for an adaptive management approach. It also discusses the need for coordination of 

monitoring efforts and for data and information management, synthesis, reporting, and 

evaluation. The estuary module RME chapter identifies RME needs associated with each 

management action in the module; describes existing monitoring plans, programs, and 

projects that relate to those needs; and identifies gaps and potential projects to fill 

those gaps. 

 4 PacifiCorp breached Condit Dam in October 2011 and completely removed the dam in September 2012. 

Specific actions to improve habitat and monitor results will be determined once post-removal habitat 

conditions have been evaluated.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-15

Monitoring for the estuary module will build on ongoing efforts, particularly efforts 

established under the Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation for the Federal Columbia River 

Estuary Program (ERME) (Johnson et al. 2008). The ERME monitoring plan forms the 

basis for estuary RME in the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological 

Opinion (NMFS 2008f) and the 2010 FCRPS Supplemental Biological Opinion 

(NMFS 2010a). 

In addition to the ERME plan, other monitoring plans and guidance documents 

applicable to estuary RME are listed in the module. To implement these existing 

monitoring plans, a number of monitoring programs and projects are already under way 

in the estuary. The module identifies these programs and projects and relates them to 

the RME needs for each of the 23 management actions in the module, identifies a 

number of gaps, and suggests projects to fill those gaps. For each monitoring need, the 

module also recommends sampling design, spatial and temporal scale, variables to be 

measured, measurement protocols, variables to be derived, analyses needed, and 

possible implementing and funding entities. 

As implementation of monitoring programs proceeds in the estuary and tributaries, 

there will be a need to ensure appropriate integration. For example, are monitoring 

designs compatible and/or comparable, are methods compatible or comparable, and are 

RME efforts addressing recovery plan questions?

10.5 RME in Biological Opinions and Records of Decision

Several federal agencies have natural resource responsibilities related to the ESA and 

rely on biological opinions and issue records of decision that include RME that may be 

relevant to salmon recovery. Efforts to develop and coordinate recovery plan monitoring 

in the Lower Columbia subdomain should consider how RME needs and 

recommendations outlined in such documents could help fulfill recovery plan 

monitoring needs. Similarly, in proposing RME activities in biological assessments and 

records of decision, federal agencies should consider the context of recovery plan 

monitoring needs. 

Examples of relevant biological opinions include those for Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission relicensing settlement agreements, harvest management decisions, and 

habitat actions, particularly large-scale actions. The 2008 Federal Columbia River Power 

System Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement, including the FCRPS Adaptive 

Management Implementation Plan (AMIP) (NMFS 2009c), along with associated RME 

work groups, are also relevant in the Lower Columbia, although less so than in the 

interior of the Columbia Basin. 

10.6 Regional Coordination Efforts

Described briefly below are some of the regional entities that serve as a catalyst or 

provide forums for regional coordination of monitoring efforts. Such coordination 

efforts take place within the context of the RME guidance documents described above, 

in Section 10.2, and the management unit RME plans described above, in Section 10.3: 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-16

• The Bonneville Power Administration and Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is a major funding source for 

salmon recovery projects in the Columbia Basin as part of its obligation to mitigate 

the effects of the operation of the FCRPS on fish and wildlife. The Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council (NPCC) plays an important role in deciding which 

projects BPA should fund. As such, these two organizations function as 

coordinators of RME, both in terms of the RME actions they fund and the 

information-sharing processes they initiate or approve. For more information, see 

http://efw.bpa.gov/IntegratedFWP/anadfishresearch.aspx and 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/.

• The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. The Columbia Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) provides a venue for representatives of the states and 

tribes to work toward comprehensive and effective planning and implementation of 

fish and wildlife programs in the Columbia Basin. CBFWA’s role includes 

evaluating monitoring needs and making recommendations to the NPCC and BPA 

on project funding. CBFWA is also a central source for information and news on 

status and trends of fish and wildlife in the Columbia Basin. For more information, 

see http://www.cbfwa.org/index.cfm.

• The Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership. The Pacific Northwest 

Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) is a coordinating forum whose primary 

mission is to encourage standardization of monitoring methods among state, 

federal, and tribal aquatic habitat and salmonid monitoring programs. PNAMP 

partners strive to improve communication and sharing of resources and data, and 

they work toward compatible monitoring efforts that will ultimately provide 

increased scientific credibility, cost-effective use of limited funds, and greater 

accountability to stakeholders. They develop and advance recommendations for 

consideration and potential adoption by participating agencies. The PNAMP effort 

is funded by in-kind services and modest funding from various agencies. A 

PNAMP demonstration project on Integrated Status and Trends Monitoring is 

under way in the Lower Columbia subdomain. For more information, see 

http://www.pnamp.org/.

• Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program. The Integrated Status 

and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) is a scientific group working on 

four intensively monitored watersheds to test and evaluate methods for status and 

trends monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. It is hoped that the group’s results 

will help others choose and design monitoring programs more effectively. For more 

information, see http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cbd/mathbio/

isemp/index.cfm.

• FCRPS Biological Opinion Work Groups. As noted above (in Section 10.2.3.2), 

completion of the 2008 Biological Opinion on the operation of the Federal Columbia 

River Power System (FCRPS) stimulated collaboration related to RME in the 

Columbia Basin, including the mainstem lower Columbia River and estuary. FCRPS 

Biological Opinion work groups were formed and tasked with determining how 

best to implement the recommendations in the Biological Opinion and how to 

conduct related RME. These groups provide wide-reaching catalysts for RME 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-17

coordination. Because these work groups are ongoing and are evaluating agency 

proposals for funding, they may create the impetus for future coordination of

activities for the Lower Columbia subdomain. 

One effort that grew out of this coordination was the Anadromous Salmonid 

Monitoring Strategy (ASMS). The ASMS was a collaborative process in which 

Columbia Basin fish management agencies and tribes had an opportunity to react to 

work group recommendations from the Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and other state and federal

agencies that monitor anadromous salmonids and/or their habitat. This interaction 

led to consensus on monitoring approaches. 

Of the above coordination efforts, the Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy and 

PNAMP Integrated Status and Trends Monitoring Demonstration Project are 

particularly relevant in the Lower Columbia recovery subdomain. They are described in 

more detail below. 

10.6.1 Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (ASMS)

The Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (ASMS) grew out of the Columbia 

Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Workshop, which BPA, CBFWA, NMFS, 

and the NPCC convened in Skamania, Washington, in October and November 2009. The 

purposes of the workshop were to develop a coordinated anadromous fish monitoring 

strategy for the Columbia Basin, to reach agreement among participants on an efficient 

and effective framework for monitoring, and to outline a specific 

implementation strategy. 

The focus of the workshop was the monitoring of population status and trends using 

VSP criteria, of habitat action effectiveness, and of salmon hatchery effectiveness. 

Attendees used general guidelines for monitoring study design and for quality 

standards in each of these topics (primarily these guidelines were drawn from the 

Crawford and Rumsey [2011] RME guidance document) and collaborated to develop a 

monitoring strategy for each of four regions within the Columbia Basin, including the 

Lower Columbia region. In developing the strategies, participants evaluated inventories 

of all current monitoring work and identified overlaps and gaps for VSP, habitat 

effectiveness, and hatchery effectiveness data. From these inventories and evaluations, 

they developed a final, prioritized strategy. The framework and strategy are intended to 

address the needs of the NPCC’s Fish and Wildlife Program and the 2008 FCRPS 

Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement and to contribute to ESA recovery plan and 

other regional fisheries management monitoring needs. 

The ASMS (available at http://www.cbfwa.org/AMS/FinalDocs.cfm) contains the 

following elements relevant to the Lower Columbia subdomain: 

• Lower Columbia subregion monitoring strategy 

• Populations targeted for habitat status and trend and fish-in/fish-out monitoring, 

which will be used to assess habitat action effectiveness 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-18

• Critical monitoring projects, monitoring strategy, prioritized monitoring gaps, 

recommendations for addressing monitoring gaps under the FCRPS Reasonable and 

Prudent Alternative (RPA), prioritized projects (as of 2009) to be continued as-is or 

with modifications, and new funding proposals and estimated costs to address 

monitoring gaps 

Co-managers subscribing to this strategy include the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Lower Columbia 

Fish Recovery Board also participated in the discussions and subscribes to the strategy.

The ASMS products helped to identify gaps in population-scale adult abundance and 

smolt monitoring in the Lower Columbia subdomain and to obtain funding to fill those 

gaps. Additional effort, coordination, and funding will be needed to complete a 

comprehensive monitoring program for the Lower Columbia subdomain that includes 

the full range of monitoring needed for this recovery plan (e.g., monitoring of 

population-level spatial structure and diversity, monitoring of habitat status and trends 

at various scales, and action effectiveness monitoring).

The general ASMS approach for the Lower Columbia subdomain is as follows:

• Viable salmonid population criteria: Conduct annual surveys of natural- and 

hatchery-origin spawner abundance at the population scale to facilitate assessment 

of productivity, diversity, and distribution. Conduct annual surveys of juvenile 

density and distribution at the stratum scale; conduct life cycle (fish-in/fish-out) 

monitoring in at least one subwatershed per stratum.

• Habitat: Conduct annual generalized random tessellation stratified (GRTS)-based 

habitat surveys at the stratum scale; do pre- and post monitoring at habitat 

restoration sites, and use intensively monitored watersheds. (An intensively 

monitored watershed was initiated in the Mill/Abernathy/Germany subbasin of 

the Lower Columbia subdomain in 2003 with funds from NMFS and the 

Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board. For the IMW to be effective in 

meeting its goals, funding should be maintained for monitoring and for 

implementation of restoration treatments of sufficient scope and intensity to 

provide detectable fish and habitat responses.

• Hatchery effectiveness: Monitor the effects of segregated and integrated hatchery 

programs, the coded-wire tag program, relative reproductive success, natural- and 

hatchery-origin spawner abundance, and residualism/ecological interactions.

WDFW and ODFW currently use slightly different approaches to monitor VSP criteria, 

particularly adult abundance. WDFW estimates of adult abundance have been based on 

expansions from fish surveys or redd counts combined with mark-recapture studies or 

from monitoring at weirs. In most cases ODFW’s current redd surveys are GRTS-based, 

which facilitates evaluation of the precision and certainty of the adult abundance 

estimates. Both agencies are working through the PNAMP Integrated Status and Trends 

Monitoring program (see below) to improve integration of existing and new monitoring 

efforts for status and trends. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-19

10.6.2 PNAMP Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Demonstration Project 

The Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership's (PNAMP) Integrated Status 

and Trend Monitoring (ISTM) project is intended to demonstrate approaches for and the 

utility of integrating the collection of information to address multi-scale questions about 

the status and trends of fish (ESA-listed salmon, steelhead, and, potentially, bull trout), 

and physical, chemical, and biological attributes in stream networks. The overall intent 

is to assist PNAMP's participating members in developing strategic action plans for 

monitoring in the bi-state lower Columbia River demonstration area, as well as to 

demonstrate the general approach to developing such plans for other areas in the Pacific 

Northwest. The ISTM effort will provide entities tasked with monitoring fish 

populations and aquatic habitat in the Pacific Northwest with a roadmap for integration 

of scientifically sound monitoring programs intended to meet the needs of decision 

makers and managers. Specifically, the ISTM project will apply this approach and 

develop recommendations for integrated monitoring plans for ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead and their habitats in the Lower Columbia subdomain. 

A major objective of the ISTM project is to apply a “master sample” concept to the

selection of sampling locations in the Lower Columbia subdomain. The project is being 

accomplished using a collaborative approach that involves PNAMP members and other 

local partners, including LCFRB, WDFW, and ODFW, who plan to use the resulting 

monitoring designs in the implementation of their RME plans. The master sample 

concept, along with other monitoring and monitoring design tools, has broad 

applicability to address status and trends questions in the estuarine and near-shore 

marine areas (area-based master sample), in addition to the status and trends of 

attributes along linear stream networks.

Other goals of the program include the following: 

• Develop a coordinated VSP monitoring program that addresses key regional 

monitoring questions in a study design of sufficient quality and quantity to 

determine the status of Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead.

• Develop a habitat status and trends monitoring design for the Lower Columbia 

subdomain.

• Identify and prioritize decisions, questions, and objectives.

• Evaluate the extent to which existing programs align with these decisions, 

questions, and objectives.

• Identify the most appropriate monitoring design to inform priority decisions.

• Use trade-off analysis to develop specific recommendations for monitoring. 

• Recommend implementation and reporting mechanisms. 

10.7 Additional Needs for RME in the Lower Columbia

Continued challenges in the Lower Columbia subdomain relate to efforts to develop an 

integrated, comprehensive RME system for the subdomain that is consistent with 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-20

recovery plan needs and efforts to design data management and integration systems.

There is also a need for funding to adequately implement the RME recommendations of 

the management unit recovery plans. 

10.7.1 Integrated RME Program

The overall challenge in the Lower Columbia subdomain is to continue the process 

begun by CBFWA and NMFS in 2009 to integrate and coordinate the many RME efforts 

under way and to develop a systematically designed regional RME program. Such a 

program will help ensure that we have the information needed to assess salmon and 

steelhead status and the status of habitat and other threats and to ensure that we are 

using resources appropriately and efficiently. Such integration and coordination efforts 

should occur within the context of the full range of monitoring needs identified in 

recovery plans. 

10.7.2 Data Management and Integration

Data management and integration also continue to pose challenges in the Lower 

Columbia subdomain and entire Columbia Basin. Through CBFWA, a collaborative 

effort is under way to develop assessment and data sharing strategies for meeting 

regional reporting requirements within each subregion of the ASMS. This effort will also 

identify gaps in data management and sharing capacities and establish strategies to close 

those gaps. This effort will address key questions such as how data will be shared, 

which data dictionary will be used, and what mechanisms will be developed to ensure 

that consistent evaluations, calculations, and metadata are used and documented 

(Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 2010). 

Such a strategy is needed to ensure effective evaluation of the FCRPS Biological 

Opinion, effective evaluation of recovery plan implementation and progress toward the 

recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, and effective implementation of the 

anadromous salmonid elements of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 

If successful, this data sharing strategy will provide the framework and technical tools to 

allow data sharing across disparate systems from the local level to the regional level; it 

also will ensure that comparable data from different sources can be combined to 

facilitate assessment at the regional scale. 

10.8 Research on Critical Uncertainties

As noted in Section 10.3, the management unit recovery plans have identified 

comprehensive lists of critical uncertainties and research, monitoring, and evaluation 

needs. The White Salmon and Washington management unit plans have discrete 

sections on critical uncertainties for all of the ESUs in general (see Section 8.3 of NMFS 

2013, pp. 8-4 through 8-6, and Section 9.6 of LCFRB 2010a, pp. 9-68 through 9-73), while 

the Oregon management unit plan embeds relevant critical uncertainties within 

subsections on monitoring and evaluation needs related to the four VSP parameters and 

five ESA listing factors (see Sections 8.4 and 8.5, respectively, of ODFW 2010). In 

addition, in June 2010, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board completed the 

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program for Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead as a 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

10-21

companion to its recovery plan (LCFRB 2010b). This document also describes 

critical uncertainties.

The species chapters of this recovery plan contain preliminary lists of priority critical 

uncertainties for each species (see Sections 6.6.8, 7.4.3.8, 7.5.3.8, 7.6.3.6, 8.6.8, and 9.6.7). 

These preliminary priorities were identified by Oregon and Washington recovery 

planners and NMFS Northwest Regional Office and Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

staff during a November 2010 workshop. They are preliminary priorities only (and are 

not in ranked order); additional discussion among local recovery planners and NMFS 

staff will be needed to finalize future research and monitoring priorities for Lower 

Columbia River salmon and steelhead. NMFS expects to work with management unit 

recovery planners to finalize research and monitoring priorities and to ensure that 

results are incorporated into future 5-year reviews (see Section 10.9). 

The work in the management unit plans and the preliminary priorities identified in this 

recovery plan will provide the basis for continuing discussion of how to prioritize funds 

and activities for monitoring and research in the lower Columbia Basin. 

10.9 RME and ESA 5-Year Reviews

The ESA requires NMFS to assess the status of listed species every 5 years. NMFS 

completed the most recent 5-year review in 2011 (76 Federal Register 50448, NMFS 2011b). 

NMFS will work with recovery plan implementers and other entities to link 

prioritization of RME efforts to products that will inform these 5-year reviews in 

the future. 

The Oregon, Washington, and White Salmon management unit plans identify initial 

monitoring and evaluation actions intended to produce information needed to further 

refine particular strategies or to validate key assumptions behind recovery objectives.

For example, the Oregon management unit plan (ODFW 2010) highlights key 

uncertainties regarding historical and current population structure in the Gorge strata

and calls for additional analysis to refine the identification of historical population 

structure by the WLC TRT. The White Salmon management unit plan (NMFS 2013) 

highlights the need for an immediate monitoring effort to evaluate fish recolonization 

above the former Condit Dam site. Both the Oregon and Washington management unit 

plans call for a review of methods for assessing population status with the intent of 

improving the methods to ensure that progress toward recovery objectives can be 

effectively evaluated. The Oregon and Washington management unit plans also both 

call for developing—and periodically reviewing and updating—implementation plans 

for recovery actions (including RME). NMFS anticipates working with the parties 

involved in these efforts to prioritize and set timelines for these RME tasks to ensure that 

information is developed and made available for consideration during future 5-

year reviews.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-1

11. Implementation and Coordination

Recovery plan implementation involves many entities and stakeholders, and the needs 

for coordination are complex and occur at multiple levels. For instance, implementation 

and coordination needs exist at the management unit and subdomain levels and involve 

government entities at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels and also nongovernmental entities. Coordination at the subdomain level is further complicated by 

the bi-state nature of the Lower Columbia subdomain, the need for coordination on 

issues of regional scope, and the need for close coordination with implementers of 

estuary recovery actions. 

Coordination needs may differ depending on the type and scale of action in question. 

For instance, habitat actions require extensive local coordination but also coordination at 

the ESU or DPS level to ensure that overall recovery needs are being met. Similarly, 

although many funding decisions are made locally, there is a need for coordination of 

funding sources at the subdomain scale to ensure the most effective use of limited funds. 

Recovery strategies and actions related to harvest and hatcheries are another example of 

actions that require coordination at both state and subdomain scales and with NMFS 

and other entities.

In general, the management unit plans are the primary documents guiding 

implementation in the Lower Columbia subdomain. Coordination at the subdomain 

scale will occur as needed and will be achieved primarily through the Lower Columbia 

Recovery Plan Implementation Steering Committee, which will be the successor to the 

Lower Columbia Recovery Planning Steering Committee, which NMFS convened to 

guide development of this recovery plan and which will continue on to 

coordinate implementation.

This chapter presents NMFS’ vision for recovery plan implementation, defines 

implementation responsibilities for NMFS and the management units, and describes 

how implementation of this recovery plan will be structured and coordinated. 

11.1 NMFS’ Vision for Recovery Implementation

In general, NMFS’ vision for recovery implementation is that recovery plan actions are 

carried out in a cooperative and collaborative manner so that recovery and delisting 

occur (NMFS 2008d). NMFS’ strategic goals to achieve that vision are as follows: 

• Sustain local support and momentum for recovery implementation. 

• Implement recovery plan actions within the time periods specified in each plan. 

• Encourage others to use their authorities to implement recovery plan actions.

• Ensure that the implemented actions contribute to recovery. 

• Provide accurate assessments of species status and trends, limiting factors, and 

threats.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-2

NMFS’ approach to achieving these goals is as follows:

• Support local efforts by using domain teams to coordinate internally and 

externally and encourage recovery plan implementation.1

• Use recovery plans to guide regulatory decision making.

• Provide leadership in regional forums to develop research, monitoring, and 

evaluation processes that track recovery action effectiveness and status and 

trends at the population and ESU levels.

• Provide periodic reports on species status and trends, limiting factors, threats, 

and plan implementation status.

• Staff and support the Lower Columbia Recovery Plan Implementation Steering 

Committee

NMFS will carry out its vision, goals, and strategic approach to recovery for the Lower 

Columbia River ESUs and DPS by working in partnership with the Lower Columbia 

Recovery Plan Implementation Steering Committee and the management units.

11.2 Prioritizing Recovery Actions

Prioritizing recovery actions is an important part of implementation of this recovery 

plan. Although the management unit plans establish population priorities and in some 

cases identify specific sites or reaches for implementation of tributary habitat actions, 

additional prioritization work is needed at both the management unit and subdomain 

levels, both within and among threat categories. The sections below describe how the 

management unit plans approached questions of prioritization and offer perspectives 

for potential consideration during implementation of the recovery plan.

11.2.1 Prioritizing Populations 

As described in Section 3.1.3, management unit recovery planners developed a recovery 

scenario for each ESU that designates individual population goals at three levels of 

contribution to recovery: primary, contributing, and stabilizing. Populations designated 

as primary need to be restored to viability and are in many ways the foundation for ESU 

recovery. It is likely that primary populations will be prioritized for implementation of 

recovery actions, and actions benefitting multiple primary populations may be given 

highest priority. However, the management unit plans are clear that no population is 

unimportant to recovery. Regardless of whether a population is designated as primary, 

contributing, or stabilizing, it must achieve the status designated in the recovery 

scenario if the ESU as a whole is to recover. Recovery actions will be needed even for 

those populations designated as stabilizing, to maintain them at their baseline 

persistence probability.

 

1 Domain teams are an organizational structure internal to NMFS whose purpose is to coordinate recovery 

plan completion and implementation. The teams promote consistency in internal decision making and work 

with federal, state, tribal, and local recovery parties to achieve recovery plan objectives.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-3

11.2.2 Geographic Priorities

Establishing priorities at the stream reach scale is useful in identifying and sequencing 

habitat protection and restoration measures. All of the management unit plans identify 

site-specific tributary habitat actions for recovery. The Washington management unit 

plan prioritized tributary habitat actions by stream reach based on the needs of all 

salmon and steelhead populations, collectively, within a particular subbasin. The 

Oregon management unit plan did some population-specific prioritization based on 

where an action will have the greatest beneficial effect and where implementation is 

most feasible, but for many Oregon subbasin additional assessment is needed to 

determine protection and restoration priorities at a meaningful spatial scale (ODFW 

2010). The White Salmon also identifies areas as a high priority for habitat actions but 

points to the need for additional information to identify and prioritize specific habitat 

actions (NMFS 2013). In each case, the priority sites or reaches within each subbasin are 

not ranked against each other; rather, the management unit plans considered them to 

together be the highest priority areas for implementation of tributary habitat actions 

within each subbasin.

Oregon recovery planners determined locations for tributary habitat actions based on 

reach-scale habitat assessments or, when assessments were unavailable, professional 

judgment (ODFW 2010). For salmon and steelhead populations in subbasins that lack a 

reach-scale habitat assessment, the Oregon management unit plan recommends that an 

assessment be conducted to better define the highest priority areas for implementation 

of recovery actions (ODFW 2010). 

Washington recovery planners used habitat assessment and modeling tools to assess the 

significance of each stream reach to net production of an individual species within a

subbasin.2 From this assessment, recovery planners identified high-, medium-, and lowpriority reaches for each species and then placed reaches into one of four tiers, taking 

into consideration both the relative importance of a reach within a population and each 

fish population’s importance relative to regional recovery objectives (LCFRB 2010a). 

This process yielded a four-tier, multi-species prioritization of stream reaches within 

each subbasin. 

The White Salmon management unit plan identifies specific areas as high-priority 

reaches for habitat protection and restoration based on the expected distribution of 

salmon and steelhead species within the subbasin. Priority reaches were determined 

using information from current literature (NMFS 2013). 

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) identifies priority reaches for each management action it analyzes (see Table 5-6 

of NMFS 2011a). However, the estuary module refrains from explicitly prioritizing 

actions because it considers all of the management actions it identifies as important in 

improving the survival of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River estuary and plume. 

The module does identify actions likely to be most beneficial to stream-type and oceantype salmonids and actions that are most cost-effective (see Tables 7-2, 7-3, and 7-5 of 

NMFS 2011a); these analyses take into account the probable implementation constraints 

 

2 For more detail, see p. 3-30 of LCFRB (2010a).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-4

for each action. The module also notes that a logical first step in implementation would 

be a conversation among all relevant entities and stakeholders to discuss near-term 

implementation priorities, with a goal of developing a 5-year implementation plan that 

provides specificity and certainty regarding near-term actions and that identifies lead 

entities for implementation of specific actions or projects. 

11.2.3 Prioritizing Actions 

Because the Oregon and Washington management unit plans consider all of the actions 

they identify as significant for recovery and thus a high priority,3 they defer detailed 

prioritization of actions to the implementation phase of recovery. Many decisions about 

prioritization will be made in the process of developing implementation schedules (see 

Section 11.3.2). For Oregon populations, an implementation team is expected to develop 

3-year implementation schedules that outline priorities for the upcoming years; 

implementing entities then will use the action priorities outlined in the implementation 

schedules to identify projects for implementation and seek funding for those projects 

(ODFW 2010). Similarly, high-priority actions for Washington populations will be 

identified in a series of 6-year implementation work schedules that will include 

schedules, costs, and constraints and identify responsibilities. The Lower Columbia Fish 

Recovery Board, working with a steering committee, will facilitate and coordinate efforts 

among oversight and implementing partners; this will include setting priorities (LCFRB 

2010a). The Washington management unit plan notes that priorities are expected to 

evolve over time based on new information, progress in implementation, and the 

adaptive management process. 

Both the Oregon and White Salmon management unit plans offer some guidance on 

how actions might be prioritized, either during the implementation phase or as an aid in 

identifying actions that need to be implemented immediately to reduce near-term risks. 

The White Salmon management unit plan recommends that projects be prioritized for 

funding based on a balance of biological benefit, cost, and feasibility of implementation, 

with the highest funding priority given to projects that address primary limiting factors, 

have high biological benefit, are relatively inexpensive, and are feasible (NMFS 2013). 

The Oregon management unit plan suggests that the following be considered high 

priorities as actions are identified for implementation and funding:

• Actions for populations that must achieve viability status (i.e., primary 

populations, which are targeted for high or very high persistence priority)

• Actions that address a threat reduction need 

• Actions that address a primary limiting factor

• Actions that address a relatively large gap between baseline and target status, or 

that address a relatively large threat reduction need 

• Actions in locations that will result in or protect accessible and connected highquality habitat 

 

3 See p. 388 of ODFW (2010) and p. 69 of the overview to LCFRB (2010).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-5

• Restoration actions in high intrinsic potential (IP) locations4

• Actions intended to protect threatened high-quality or highly productive habitat 

• Actions that provide resiliency against climate change 

• Actions in areas that are believed to result in a significant improvement in 

survival 

• Actions that address those threat categories that require the most improvement5

For more discussion of prioritization of actions, see p. 387 of ODFW (2010).

The Washington management unit plan does not explicitly address prioritization of 

actions across threat categories.

11.3 Organizational Structure and Implementation Roles and 

Responsibilities 

Effectively implementing recovery actions for Lower Columbia River Chinook and coho 

salmon, Lower Columbia River steelhead, and Columbia River chum salmon will 

require coordinating the actions of diverse private, local, state, tribal, and federal parties 

across two states. Coordination needs within the Lower Columbia subdomain exist at 

multiple levels. At the subdomain level, the Lower Columbia Recovery Plan

Implementation Steering Committee (LC Steering Committee) will lead efforts to 

coordinate the actions of these many players, working with subcommittees and other 

regional forums as needed. At the management unit level, Washington’s Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board will lead implementation in the Washington 

management unit and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife implementation 

coordinator and stakeholder team will lead recovery plan implementation in Oregon, 

supported by the governance structure of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. 

In the White Salmon subbasin, the Washington Gorge Implementation Team, 

coordinated by NMFS, currently is tracking progress on implementation of the White 

Salmon management unit plan (NMFS 2013) and will also coordinate among the 

multiple entities involved in implementation there. Members of the Washington Gorge 

Implementation Team include the Yakama Nation, state and local agencies, local 

conservation districts, and other entities.

Because the planning areas of the Washington and Oregon management units overlap in 

tidal portions of tributaries with the planning area of the Columbia River Estuary ESA 

Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a), there is also a need for 

coordination between the management units and entities implementing estuary 

recovery actions. Finally, NMFS has a unique role in recovery plan implementation. 

These various coordinating forums and roles are described below.

 

4 See ODFW (2010) p. 205, Table 6-39, for a description of high intrinsic potential areas. 

5 This is the only specific guidance in the management unit plans regarding prioritization of actions across 

the threat categories.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-6

11.3.1 Subdomain Level: Lower Columbia Recovery Plan Implementation Steering 

Committee

The Lower Columbia Recovery Plan Implementation Steering Committee (LC Steering 

Committee) will serve as a forum for communication and coordination on a bi-state 

level, among management units, with entities implementing estuary recovery actions, 

and with other regional forums. Figure 11-1 shows the makeup of the steering 

committee and its relationship to other regional entities. 

LC RP Implementation Framework

Figure 11-1. Lower Columbia Recovery Plan Implementation Organizational Structure

Functions of the steering committee include the following:

• Facilitating communication and coordination between states and among 

management units on issues related to implementation of recovery actions

• Facilitating communication and coordination with other regional entities and 

forums on issues related to implementation of recovery actions

• Increasing awareness of the recovery plan and advocating for implementation of 

recovery actions

• Providing recommendations for prioritization of recovery efforts and the use 

of resources

• Advancing the application of adaptive management to recovery efforts and the 

coordination of RME efforts
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-7

• Identifying and coordinating funding opportunities for recovery actions 

and RME 

• Convening and overseeing issue-specific work groups as needed

• Providing an interface with the Recovery Implementation Science Team

convened by NMFS

The committee will also serve as a link to other regional forums that have an interest in 

salmon recovery, such as the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia 

Basin Federal Caucus, Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and Columbia Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Authority.

A key related program is implementation of the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program subbasin management plans. NMFS, in full 

coordination with management unit leads, fishery management agencies, and tribes, 

should ensure that the project selection process for the NPCC’s subbasin plans within 

the management unit is consistent with the ESA priority actions in this recovery plan 

and the implementation schedules. The steering committee may serve as a coordinating 

forum for this effort.

11.3.1.1 Organization/Membership 

Members of the LC Steering Committee will include, but not be limited to, NMFS, the 

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, the Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery 

Office, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, the Oregon Governor’s Office, the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, 

and the Yakama Nation. Representatives of these entities constituted the steering 

committee during recovery plan development. As appropriate, these members may 

decide to include additional entities.

11.3.1.2 Operations

The LC Steering Committee will meet semi-annually or as needed. Policy issues will be 

resolved at the appropriate level, be it within the steering committee or within 

respective local, state, federal, and tribal authorities and agencies. 

NMFS will serve as the convening partner and provide facilitation, venues, and other 

needs associated with convening meetings. Participating agencies and parties will fund 

their staff’s involvement.

11.3.1.3 Areas of Focus

The LC Steering Committee will focus on four functional areas: (1) policy, 

(2) implementation, (3) research, monitoring, and evaluation, and (4) outreach. For these 

topic areas, the committee may establish work groups either as standing subcommittees 

or on an ad hoc basis. The decision to establish such subgroups will be determined 

based on the anticipated scope of work for each topic, LC Steering Committee members’ 

available staffing and funding, and other considerations, as the LC Steering Committee 

considers appropriate. The intent of these efforts is to support coordinated and effective 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-8

implementation of this recovery plan. More detail on each functional area is 

provided below.

Policy

The LC Steering Committee will serve as a forum for coordinating and discussing policy 

issues at the subdomain level. The committee may elect to organize subgroups for 

specific issues. Focus areas could include identifying issues where joint advocacy would 

support implementation or effectiveness of Lower Columbia recovery actions; providing 

recovery-plan perspective and input on regulatory and management decisions that 

affect the Lower Columbia River ESUs and DPS; tracking the status of Lower Columbiarelated activities in the NPCC, Federal Caucus, FCRPS litigation, Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council, and other regional forums; and, as appropriate, developing policy 

recommendations on specific issues. Subgroups on specific issues will be convened 

as appropriate. 

Implementation

Implementation focus areas for the LC Steering Committee will include discussing the 

progress of implementation progress and coordinating and resolving issues related to 

implementation of actions that are regional in scope. Specific implementation-related

activities could include tracking the status of implementation schedules for each

management unit, helping to resolve issues related to Lower Columbia River harvest 

and hatchery actions, sharing significant accomplishments, promoting information and 

technology transfer, communicating priorities for future action, and identifying 

opportunities where shared advocacy and coordination would help implement key 

recovery actions. Subgroups may be convened and will consist of staff from 

management unit recovery planning entities and representatives from partners in 

funding programs and recovery efforts.

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

The LC Steering Committee will ensure that RME activities are appropriately 

coordinated throughout the subdomain. RME activities in which the committee engages 

could include ensuring that new information on VSP parameters is adequately reviewed 

and compiled and that population status summaries are updated accordingly, 

identifying high-priority knowledge gaps across ESUs and coordinating efforts to 

address them, identifying how to track threats criteria and providing annual summaries 

of applicable data, and seeking efficiencies across the subdomain. The LC Steering 

Committee will convene subgroups on these matters as needed and appropriate.

Outreach 

Activities in this focus area will include developing and/or supporting outreach related 

to recovery of the Lower Columbia River ESUs and DP, such as drafting or reviewing 

NMFS’ biennial reports to Congress and updates to key decision makers (elected 

officials, agency heads, etc). Subgroups consisting of representatives from state 

governors’ staffs, co-manager policy leads, management unit representatives, and/or 

partner agency policy staff may be convened. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-9

11.3.2 Management Unit Level

Each management unit planning lead has proposed an organizational structure for plan 

implementation at the management unit level. In Oregon and Washington, this structure 

is based on the structure used for development of the respective management unit 

recovery plans. These approaches differed somewhat and will continue to differ slightly. 

In Oregon, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife led recovery plan development 

with assistance from the Oregon Governor’s Natural Resources Office and the Lower 

Columbia River Recovery Planning Stakeholder Team. During implementation, an 

ODFW implementation coordinator will be the lead staff person for facilitating 

implementation of the recovery plan. In Washington, the Lower Columbia Fish 

Recovery Board developed the management unit plan and will coordinate 

implementation with guidance and support from the Washington Governor’s Salmon 

Recovery Office. In the White Salmon management unit, NMFS, in coordination with the

Washington Gorge Implementation Team (WAGIT), has taken the lead in coordinating 

implementation. NMFS encourages the formation of a Washington Gorge Area Regional

Board to coordinate implementation in the White Salmon management unit, if local 

stakeholders determine that this is appropriate.6

For the purposes of implementation, the term “management unit leads” (MU leads) 

refers to the LCFRB, ODFW (through its Lower Columbia implementation coordinator, 

who will work in conjunction with Oregon’s recovery implementation team) and, for the 

White Salmon, NMFS (through the Washington Gorge Implementation Team). The MU 

leads have three primary responsibilities with respect to implementation: 

1. Developing implementation schedules. Each MU lead is responsible for 

developing an implementation schedule for that MU plan and updating the 

schedule as needed. Implementation schedules identify the following: 

• Recovery projects specific to plan actions for populations within the 

management units

• Limiting factor(s) addressed by each project

• Priority for completing the projects

• Duration of and schedule for projects

• Benefits of each project

• Lead agency/entity to implement each population-specific project 

• Estimated cost for each project over a period of time

2. Coordinating implementation. Management unit leads are responsible for 

coordinating implementation of recovery actions identified in the management 

unit plan and implementation schedule. In this capacity, they serve to facilitate 

communication vertically (i.e., at different spatial scales related to recovery plan 

governance) and horizontally (i.e., among related programs and interests and 

outside of the recovery plan governance structure) within their respective inter-

 

6 The Washington Gorge Area Regional Board could consist of representatives from Klickitat, Skamania, 

Yakima, and Benton counties, local landowners, the Yakama Nation, and possibly others. Such a board 

could also coordinate with the LCFRB.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-10

and intra-agency organizational structures. Specific responsibilities include 

the following: 

• Coordinating with federal and state agencies, tribes, local governments, 

and other stakeholders

• Developing implementation strategies for and facilitating implementation 

of actions that require coordination among various entities. Potential 

activities include local outreach; provision of incentives, technical 

assistance, and project funding; project management; and 

monitoring/reporting.

3. Tracking and reporting. Management unit leads are responsible for tracking and 

reporting on the progress of implementation of their plan actions. Specific 

responsibilities include: 

• Coordinating plan monitoring within the management unit and ensuring 

appropriate tracking and reporting of recovery actions 

• Coordinating plan research within the management unit, reporting 

results, and incorporating them into adaptive management.

• Reporting on plan progress in relation to goals, strategies, and actions, 

using mechanisms and processes established for tracking progress, and 

highlighting plan successes and needs

• Reviewing and revising the management unit plan implementation 

schedule as necessary, using monitoring and research to guide actions 

and incorporating adaptive management as needed

• Representing the management unit in the LC Steering Committee and 

relevant subgroups as necessary 

Performance of these responsibilities will be influenced by the capacity, authority, and 

priorities of the management unit leads. Full accomplishment will likely require other 

support structures or processes. Not all of these duties can be accomplished initially 

with the resources currently available. Prioritization of initial duties will be guided by 

the statutory requirements of the ESA and relevant state guidance. 

11.3.2.1 Oregon 

Oregon’s recovery plan implementation framework is intended to provide a 

collaborative approach to implementation, along with scientific guidance, policy 

direction, information exchange and coordination, and linkage to state, ESU, and 

regional forums. Existing forums, groups, and partnerships will serve as the basis of 

Oregon’s implementation framework, but additional resources and funding will be 

needed to make it work effectively and successfully. The basic components of Oregon’s 

implementation structure include a recovery team, an implementation coordinator, an 

implementation team, a technical team, and stratum teams. The implementation 

framework will adapt and change as necessary to adjust to funding, available resources, 

and implementation needs (ODFW 2010). Oregon’s implementation structure is 

illustrated in Figure 11-2 and described below. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-11

Figure 11-2. Oregon’s Organizational Implementation Structure

Recovery Team 

The recovery team provides oversight and vision for recovery plan implementation. This 

team is responsible for reporting to NMFS and shares accountability for species recovery 

in the Oregon management unit. The recovery team provides overall coordination and 

guidance to the technical and implementation teams, coordinates with other domain 

teams and the Oregon Plan core team, and serves as the state’s representative to the 

LC Steering Committee. Members of the recovery team include the ODFW 

implementation coordinator and representatives from the Oregon Governor’s Natural 

Resources Office, ODFW, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, federal agencies, 

and local and tribal governments. Additional membership will include interested parties 

from counties, federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations. Although the 

recovery team serves a unique purpose and function, its members will also be on the 

implementation team (ODFW 2010).

Implementation Coordinator

An ODFW implementation coordinator will serve as Oregon’s management unit lead for 

recovery plan implementation, acting under the advice and guidance of the recovery 

team. The implementation coordinator will work in conjunction with the 

implementation and stratum teams to plan, schedule, track, and report on action 

implementation, and—in coordination with technical teams—to develop, track, and 

report on RME activities. The implementation coordinator will also be a member of the 

recovery team. The implementation coordinator will lead the implementation team in its 

deliberations and actions, coordinate and lead development of 3-year implementation 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-12

schedules and adaptive management processes, coordinate and communicate with 

watershed teams (or individual implementation entities) and the Oregon Plan regional 

management teams (interagency regional manager forum), and coordinate 

implementation of actions for which ODFW is responsible. The coordinator will also 

ensure that ODFW staff engaged in regional forums for hydropower, harvest, and 

hatchery issues (including the FCRPS Biological Opinion, U.S. v. Oregon, Northwest 

Planning and Conservation Council, and Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority) 

understand the content and priorities of the recovery plan so they can advocate for and 

use it in those forums. Actions and decisions within these forums are important in 

successfully implementing the recovery plan and achieving recovery of Lower Columbia 

River salmon and steelhead (ODFW 2010).

Implementation Team 

The implementation team provides advice, recommendations, and support to the 

implementation coordinator, who chairs the team. The team assists in communicating 

and coordinating with the stratum teams or local implementation groups; developing, 

tracking, and reporting on 3-year implementation plans; and tracking and reporting on 

research and monitoring. The implementation team also facilitates the collection and 

exchange of information, identifies and pursues funding sources, and provides for 

public participation, education, and outreach. 

Implementation team members include members of the LCR Stakeholder Team (i.e., 

cities, utilities, private forest and agriculture representatives, conservation groups, 

federal representatives, watershed councils, and soil and water conservation districts), 

other local stakeholders, interest groups, and tribes and other governments. This diverse 

group represents differing perspectives, missions, and geographic areas, with the overall 

objective of collectively and synergistically working to achieve and advance recovery 

plan goals. NMFS will also participate on the implementation team (ODFW 2010).

Technical Team

The Oregon Technical Team will provide advice and guidance on technical and scientific

issues related to RME, data analysis, and adaptive management that support and 

strengthen effective implementation of recovery plan actions. The technical team will be 

ad hoc and provide advice and guidance supplemental to that provided by the Oregon 

Plan Monitoring Team, which is an interagency monitoring forum. The technical team 

may include members of Oregon’s recovery planning team and expert panel, as well as 

other key state, federal, tribal, utility, and private scientists and biologists, consultants, 

and university staff as appropriate for the particular issue needing their advice and 

guidance. A voluntary chair will facilitate team operations (ODFW 2010).

Stratum Teams

Stratum teams will be composed of the various local entities that implement local 

restoration and conservation actions via their respective authorities, mandates, missions, 

and work plans and will include watershed councils, soil and water conservation 

districts, federal and state agencies, local governments, tribes, conservation groups, and 

utilities. Stratum teams will be encouraged to form on a voluntary basis for a specific 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-13

stratum or may already exist. In many cases, watershed councils currently serve this 

function, with representation from a diversity of interest and action groups. Team chairs 

will be voluntary, and teams will be self-directed. Collaborative teams will facilitate 

coordination and prioritization of actions and the exchange of information within the 

stratum. They will provide project information to the implementation coordinator (or 

members of the implementation team) to support development of 3-year 

implementation schedules, plans, and reports. Collectively or individually, stratum 

teams will promote public involvement through outreach, education, and volunteer 

opportunities (ODFW 2010).

11.3.2.2 Washington 

The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board will be the lead for implementation of the 

Washington management unit plan, which notes that achieving recovery will require the 

combined and coordinated actions of other federal and state agencies, tribal 

governments, and local governments, along with participation of nonprofit 

organizations, the business sector, and citizens. Collectively, these parties are referred to 

as implementing partners (LCFRB 2010a). The LCFRB organizational structure for 

implementation focuses on fulfilling three main functions: oversight, 

facilitation/coordination, and implementation. This structure is described below and 

illustrated in Figure 11-3.

Oversight Authorities and Functions 

Key oversight bodies are entities with specific authority or responsibilities for managing 

the region’s fish and wildlife resources. These include NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the state of Washington, the Cowlitz Tribe, the Yakama Nation, and the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council.7

• NMFS has the primary federal authority for the Endangered Species Act, 

Sustainable Fisheries Act, and Mitchell Act as they apply to salmon 

and steelhead. 

• The Washington Governor’s Office has the authority to direct and coordinate 

state agency actions in support of recovery. The Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife has management authority for the state’s fish and 

wildlife resources.

• The Yakama Nation is a co-manager of fish resources with the state and 

federal agencies.

• The Northwest Power and Conservation Council oversees implementation of the 

program to address the effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System on 

fish and wildlife. 

 

7 Because the scope of the Washington management unit plan is broader than just salmon and steelhead and 

includes bull trout, among other species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has jurisdiction, that 

agency is included among the implementing and oversight entities for the Washington management unit 

plan. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-14

Other federal, state, and local agencies have oversight responsibilities for water, natural 

resources, land management, and land use. These agencies are considered 

implementation partners because their responsibilities are not specific to fish 

management.

Figure 11-3. Institutional Structure for Implementing Salmon Recovery in Washington Lower 

Columbia River Subbasins

Implementation Steering Committee and Functions

The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, working with a plan implementation 

steering committee, will facilitate and coordinate efforts of the oversight bodies and 

implementing partners. NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council, Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, Washington 

Department of Ecology, U.S. Forest Service, counties, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Yakama 

Nation, Chinook Tribe, and others will be invited to participate on the committee. The 

steering committee will assist the LCFRB in guiding implementation of the plan. 

The steering committee will include representatives of the oversight bodies and a crosssection of implementing partners. Working groups consisting of steering committee 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-15

members and other implementing partners will be established as needed to address 

policy or technical issues or to coordinate implementation efforts. 

Key functions of the LCFRB and steering committee are as follows: 

• Develop and revise a 6-year regional implementation plan.

• Assist implementation partners in developing and implementing their individual 

6-year implementation plans.

• Prepare and issue clarifications or interpretations of recovery plan provisions 

when needed.

• Prepare and issue revisions or updates to the Washington management 

unit plan.8

• Develop and implement the regional public education and outreach program. 

• Conduct implementation and biological evaluations in accordance with the 

adaptive management provisions and benchmarks set forth in this plan.

• Track implementation of measures, actions, programs, and projects and issue 

annual progress reports.

• Facilitate and assist partners in resolving technical and policy issues that arise 

during implementation.

• Facilitate communications and the exchange of information and data among 

implementation and oversight partners.

• Coordinate the collection, management, synthesis, and evaluation of fish and 

habitat monitoring results collected by the partners.

• Develop implementation partnerships and agreements.

Implementing Partners 

Recovery actions will be implemented through the programs and projects of numerous 

implementing parties, some of which are shown in Figure 11-3. The functions of the 

implementing partners are as follows: 

• Develop and implement a 6-year plan for their recovery actions.

• Monitor and report on their implementation progress to the 

LCFRB/steering committee.

• Advise the LCFRB/steering committee of issues or developments that 

affect progress. 

Each partner will set forth the tasks and schedule addressing assigned recovery actions 

and will document the partner’s commitment to fulfilling its implementation 

 

8 NMFS would need to formally incorporate any substantial revisions to a management unit plan into this 

ESU-level recovery plan. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-16

responsibilities in 6-year implementation work schedules (see Section 11.4,

“Implementation Time Frames”).

The actions identified for each partner are based on the partner’s mission, capabilities, 

responsibilities, authority, and jurisdiction. Each partner is responsible for developing 

and fully implementing programs to address its assigned actions. Programs are expected 

to be technically sound and adequately funded and staffed. In the case of regulatory 

programs, agencies must be committed to taking enforcement actions when necessary to 

achieve the desired outcome. 

In some instances an implementing partner may not have the full or exclusive authority 

to implement a recovery action. A case in point is the setting of harvest quotas pursuant 

to international treaty provisions. In such instances, implementing partners will share an 

implementation responsibility to cooperate in working to achieve the desired outcome. 

If needed for coordination, the implementation steering committee may designate a lead 

agency in carrying out an implementation action shared by two or more partners. Even 

where a single implementing partner possesses the authority to fully implement a 

recovery action, the action is likely to be more effectively implemented with the 

involvement, agreement, and support of other partners. 

To achieve this level of cooperation and coordination, implementing partners are 

requested to identify in their 6-year implementation work schedules interrelationships 

with other partners that will facilitate, affect, or complement implementation of their 

recovery actions.

11.3.2.3 White Salmon

NMFS, in conjunction with the Washington Gorge Implementation Team (WAGIT), is 

coordinating recovery plan implementation in the White Salmon subbasin.

Implementation is being facilitated through the various existing programs, including 

harvest management programs, the Yakama Nation Fish Habitat Program, 

Washington’s Lead Entity Process, watershed planning and implementation processes 

initiated under state regulations and coordinated through Klickitat County, various state 

and local habitat and watershed programs, and the various programs administered by 

the conservation districts. The WAGIT draws upon and works within the many existing 

programs rather than developing a parallel and potentially conflicting recovery 

implementation process. 

11.3.3 NMFS’ Role 

NMFS’ role in the recovery of Lower Columbia River ESUs is twofold. The first is to 

ensure that the agency’s statutory responsibilities for recovery under the ESA are met. 

The second is to serve as the convening partner for the LC Steering Committee, provide 

leadership in coordinating among management units, provide NMFS’ perspective 

regarding recovery plan implementation, and update steering committee members on 

issues relevant to recovery strategies. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-17

11.3.3.1 ESA Responsibilities

NMFS is required to see that the agency’s statutory responsibilities for recovery under 

the ESA are met. In this capacity, NMFS is responsible for the following: 

• Ensuring that the recovery plan meets ESA statutory requirements, tribal trust 

and treaty obligations, and agency policy guidelines

• Developing ESU-wide performance measures consistent with the recovery 

strategies outlined in Chapters 6 through 9

• Conducting 5-year reviews

• Making delisting determinations

• Coordinating with other federal agencies to ensure compliance under the ESA

• Implementing recovery plans

11.3.3.2 LC Steering Committee Convening Partner

As the convener of the LC Steering Committee, the NMFS Northwest Regional Office, 

working through its Lower Columbia Recovery Coordinator and Domain Team, will do 

the following: 

• Convene steering committee meetings on a regular basis (at least twice a year) 

and convene additional meetings as needed. 

• Provide meeting facilitation services and manage the meeting process.

• Provide meeting venues.

• Prepare and distribute meeting notes and follow up on tasks agreed to by the 

steering committee.

• Serve as a central clearinghouse for information, to include ESU- or DPS-wide 

stock status, relevant federal scientific research, and gaps in recovery efforts for 

each ESU or DPS.

• As requested by the LC Steering Committee, establish and facilitate state, federal

and tribal meetings necessary for the coordination of recovery activities.

11.3.4 Columbia River Estuary 

The planning areas of the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon 

and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) and the Oregon and Washington management unit plans 

overlap in the tidal reaches of the lower Columbia tributaries. The geographic overlap 

and the importance of improvements in intertidal rearing habitats for the recovery of 

some Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations create a need in this 

subdomain for close coordination of estuary module implementation with 

implementation of the management unit plans.

Although not an officially designated management unit, the Columbia River estuary and 

plume, for implementation purposes, will be treated like a management unit. The Lower 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-18

Columbia Estuary Partnership and PC Trask and Associates, Inc., developed the estuary 

module under contract to NMFS. 

Implementation of the 23 management actions in the module will require the efforts of a 

variety of federal, state, and local agencies, nonprofit organizations (such as watershed 

councils), private enterprises, and citizens. (Some potential implementers have been 

identified in Table 5-6 of the estuary module.) Although many of these entities have 

already been working to identify, prioritize, and implement salmon and steelhead 

recovery actions in the estuary and plume, effective implementation of all module 

actions will require additional coordination. 

The first step in coordinated implementation of the module will be a conversation 

among all relevant entities and stakeholders to discuss near-term implementation 

priorities, with a goal of developing a 5-year implementation plan that provides 

specificity and certainty regarding near-term actions and that identifies lead entities for 

implementation of specific actions or projects. Given the complexities involved in 

implementing the full suite of module actions, this conversation also will be an 

opportunity to explore options for and recommend an organizational structure for 

coordinating and overseeing implementation of the estuary module. The Lower 

Columbia Estuary Partnership, a National Estuary Program established to bring about 

collaboration, would be an appropriate convener of this discussion. 

11.4 Implementation Time Frames

The Oregon and Washington management unit plans are 25-year plans that schedule 

actions throughout that time frame. The estuary recovery plan also uses a 25-year time 

frame for implementing its 23 management actions. The White Salmon management 

unit plan uses a 10-year implementation time frame for planning purposes; however, the 

rate of change in the river now that PacifiCorp has removed Condit Dam may affect 

this timeline. 

11.4.1 Oregon Management Unit Plan

In the Oregon management unit plan, many recovery actions are on 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, and 

25-year schedules. For priority actions, the plan requires 3-year implementation 

schedules with review and modifications, if needed, every 3 years. Members of the 

implementation team, watershed councils, and other implementing groups are 

encouraged to commit to the 3-year implementation schedule. Stratum teams, watershed 

councils, soil and water conservation districts, cities, counties, land managers and other 

implementers will use the action priorities outlined in the 3-year schedules to identify 

projects for implementation and to seek funding. 

An implementation coordinator will develop a reporting process for gathering 

information from implementers, including government and funding entities, to develop 

annual reports on plan implementation that will be shared with implementers; funding 

entities; the implementation, recovery, and Oregon Plan teams; and the public. Annual 

reports will be used to assess the effectiveness of implementation at the population and 

ESU level. The implementation team will periodically (i.e., quarterly or annually) review 

progress toward implementation of priority actions and address local needs for more 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-19

effective implementation. A major revision of the Oregon plan is called for after 

12 years.

11.4.2 Washington Management Unit Plan

The Washington management unit plan calls for new implementation schedules to be 

prepared at 6-year intervals. This cycle will coincide with the 6-year adaptive 

management checkpoints and allow the schedules to incorporate needed modifications. 

Six-year schedules may be revised every 2 years based on the adaptive management 

implementation evaluation checkpoint. 

Entities or partners already carrying out recovery actions will be asked to prepare an 

implementation schedule for their actions. These individual implementation work 

schedules will be melded into a regional implementation schedule. The LCFRB, in 

consultation with its steering committee, will develop a detailed template for 6-year 

implementation work schedules and will assist and advise partners in developing their 

schedule. The 6-year implementation work schedules submitted by each partner will set 

out tasks and schedules for addressing assigned recovery actions and document the 

partner’s commitment to fulfilling its implementation responsibilities.

11.4.3 White Salmon Management Unit Plan

In the White Salmon management unit, the Washington Gorge Implementation Team 

(WAGIT) has developed a detailed implementation plan. The WAGIT meets annually to 

update information on ongoing actions and make recommendations regarding next 

steps. The annual meeting includes discussion of information gained through research, 

monitoring, and evaluation that will help in identifying priority recovery projects,

facilitating efficient implementation of the White Salmon management unit plan, or 

identifying needed modifications in the plan. The implementation plan will be updated 

annually to reflect changes in understanding of within-subbasin processes affecting 

salmonid production and of the extent to which recolonization is occurring. The plan 

also will be updated to reflect actions initiated or completed in the prior year. Klickitat 

County maintains a database that tracks projects in the White Salmon subbasin.

11.4.4 Columbia River Estuary Recovery Plan Module

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) includes a schedule for implementing the 23 management actions and each 

action’s component projects. Schedule considerations are based primarily on the specific 

actions and the timing of component projects that depend on other projects. According 

to the estuary module, “developing a critical path for implementation of actions 

collectively is premature.” A more comprehensive schedule will require knowing the 

level of effort and funding that will be committed to carrying out the management

actions. The plan also notes the difficulties associated with establishing time frames 

when some of the actions in the 25-year plan may take decades to produce measurable 

effects.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

11-20

11.4.5 NMFS Time Frames

NMFS is required to review the status of listed species every 5 years, prepare biennial 

reports to Congress, and update key decision makers, such as elected officials and 

agency heads.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-1

12. Site-Specific Management Actions and 

Cost Estimates

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

incorporate “a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary 

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

“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.” 

Detailed information on management actions, schedules, and cost estimates are 

presented in the Washington, Oregon, and White Salmon management unit plans and 

the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (LCFRB 

2010a, ODFW 2010, NMFS 2013, and NMFS 2011a; see Appendixes A through D). This 

chapter summarizes the information contained in those documents.

12.1 Site-Specific Management Actions

The management actions presented in the management unit plans are designed to 

address the limiting factors and threats to species and populations found in each 

management unit’s respective geographic area of responsibility. Site-specific 

management actions are discussed in detail in the appended management unit plans. 

Site-specific actions with respect to the Columbia River estuary and plume, passage at 

Bonneville Dam, predation, and flow affecting conditions in the lower Columbia River, 

estuary, and plume are described in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008f),

its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 2010a), the recovery plan hydropower module (NMFS 

2008a), and the estuary module (NFMS 2011a). The management actions presented in 

each management unit plan and the estuary module are summarized in the subsections 

below. In addition, Table 12-1 presents actions that are representative of the types of 

site-specific actions in the management unit plans (i.e., in Chapters 7, 8, and 9 of ODFW 

2010, Chapters 5 and 10 of LCFRB 2010a, and Chapter 6 of NMFS 2013). The 

management unit leads will develop more detail on management actions during 

preparation of the implementation schedules described in Chapter 11 of this 

recovery plan.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-2

Table 12-1

Representative Recovery Actions

Threat 

Category Representative Actions Limiting Factors Addressed

Tributary 

Habitat

• Restore degraded off-channel habitats

• Streamline delivery of large wood to restoration sites

• Restore degraded riparian areas through planting or fencing

Channel structure and form: Bed channel and form

• Restore riparian areas to improve water quality, provide long-term supply of large wood 

to streams, and reduce impacts that alter other natural processes

Channel structure and form: Instream structural complexity

• Place gravel for spawning (below dams)

• Remove the Little Sandy River diversion (completed) 

Sediment conditions and water quality1: Decreased 

sediment quantity (impaired sediment/sand routing and 

gravel recruitment)

• Conduct sediment source analyses and reduce inputs

• Develop/implement stormwater management plans for urban areas and roads

• Identify and rectify problem legacy roads

Sediment conditions and water quality: Increased sediment 

quantity (turbidity from excessive fine sediment)

• Protect intact riparian areas via easements and acquisition

• Explore cooperative water conservation measures

• Restore connectivity to small tributaries

• Restore degraded off-channel and riparian habitat 

• Establish minimum ecosystem-based instream flows

• Identify and halt illegal water withdrawals

Water quantity: Altered hydrology

Water quantity: Decreased water quantity/downstream 

flows

Water quantity: Altered flow timing

Estuary 

habitat

• Protect intact riparian areas in the estuary and restore riparian areas that are degraded

• Protect remaining high-quality off-channel habitat from degradation and restore 

degraded areas with high intrinsic potential for high-quality habitat

• Breach, lower, or relocate dikes and levees to establish or improve access to off-channel 

habitats

• Reduce the export of sand and gravels via dredge operations by using dredged 

materials beneficially

• Reduce entrainment and habitat effects resulting from main- and side-channel dredge 

activities and ship ballast intake in the estuary

Peripheral and transitional habitats: Estuary habitat quality 

(complexity and diversity)

Peripheral and transitional habitats: Reduced macrodetrital 

inputs

 

1 The data dictionary and limiting factors crosswalk consider turbidity as a subcategory of the water quality limiting factor and thus separately from sediment 

conditions, but the two limiting factors are presented together in this table because their mechanisms, causes, and effects in the lower Columbia River basin are 

so similar. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-3

Threat 

Category Representative Actions Limiting Factors Addressed

• Operate the hydrosystem to reduce the effects of reservoir surface heating, or conduct 

mitigation measures

Peripheral and transitional habitats: Estuary habitat quality 

(complexity and diversity)

Peripheral and transitional habitats: Increased microdetrital 

inputs

Water quality: Temperature

• Protect or enhance estuary instream flows influenced by Columbia River 

tributary/mainstem water withdrawals and other water management actions in tributaries

• Adjust the timing, magnitude, and frequency of flows (especially spring freshets) entering 

the estuary and plume to better reflect the natural hydrologic cycle, improve access to 

habitats, and provide better transport of coarse sediments and nutrients in the estuary 

and plume

Water quantity: Altered hydrology 

Habitat quantity: Anthropogenic barriers

• Study and mitigate the effects of entrapment of fine sediment in reservoirs, to improve 

nourishment of the estuary and plume

Sediment conditions: Decreased sediment quantity 

• Reduce the square footage of over-water structures in the estuary

• Reduce the effects of vessel wake stranding in the estuary

Peripheral and transitional habitats: Estuary habitat quality 

(complexity and diversity)

• Implement pesticide and fertilizer best management practices to reduce estuarine and 

upstream sources of nutrients and toxic contaminants entering the estuary

• Identify and reduce terrestrially and marine-based industrial, commercial, and public 

sources of pollutants

• Restore or mitigate contaminated sites

• Implement stormwater best management practices in cities and towns

Toxic contaminants in water and biota

Water quality: Temperature

Hydropower • Remove the Little Sandy water diversion (completed), Powerdale Dam on the Hood 

River (completed), and Condit Dam on the White Salmon River (completed)

• Implement measures in the 2008 FRCRPS BiOp and its 2010 Supplement to improve 

adult and juvenile passage at Bonneville Dam

• Maintain screens and fish passage structures

• Reintroduce coho and spring Chinook salmon and winter steelhead upstream of tributary 

dams in the upper Cowlitz and North Fork Lewis subbasins (per FERC relicensing 

agreements)

• Develop, maintain, and operate effective juvenile and adult passage facilities in the 

Cowlitz and Lewis subbasins

Habitat quantity: Access (anthropogenic barrier)
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-4

Threat 

Category Representative Actions Limiting Factors Addressed

• Operate the hydro system in the North Fork Lewis and Cowlitz subbasins to provide 

appropriate flows for spawning and rearing habitat in areas downstream of the hydro 

system (i.e., maintain a flow regime that includes minimum flow requirements)

• Maintain adequate water flows in Bonneville Dam tailrace and downstream habitats 

throughout salmon migration, incubation, and rearing periods

Water quantity: Altered hydrology

• Implement PGE’s FERC agreement for the Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project 

(includes downstream passage measures, placement of spawning gravel below River 

Mill Dam, and habitat mitigation and enhancement)

Habitat quantity: Access (anthropogenic barrier)

Sediment conditions: Decreased sediment quantity

Channel structure and form: Bed and channel form

Channel structure and form: Instream structural complexity

• Restore or create off-channel habitat or access to off-channel habitat (includes 

revegetation)

Water quantity: Altered hydrology

Peripheral and transitional habitats: Side channel and 

wetland conditions

Peripheral and transitional habitats: Floodplain condition

Peripheral and transitional habitats: Estuary conditions

Riparian condition, including large wood recruitment

Water quality: Water temperature

Toxic contaminants

• Restore instream habitat complexity, including large wood placement Channel structure and form: Bed and channel form

Channel structure and form: Instream structural complexity

Hatcheries • Maintain existing wild fish sanctuaries and limit hatchery-origin spawners to levels 

consistent with the target status of each population 

• Coded-wire tag enough fish from each hatchery to allow identification of the hatchery 

program of origin

• Mark all hatchery-origin steelhead and coho and Chinook salmon (to facilitate markselective fishing)

• Change acclimation or release strategies to reduce straying

• Reduce or eliminate some hatchery releases

• Shift some hatchery production to programs further downstream 

• Make use of conservation hatchery programs for reintroduction or supplementation; 

identify appropriate time period, stock, timing, and strategies 

• Integrate wild broodstock into hatchery programs 

• Provide or improve fish passage at hatcheries (and at road, railroad and I-84 crossings)

Population diversity: Impaired productivity and diversity
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-5

Threat 

Category Representative Actions Limiting Factors Addressed

Harvest • Broaden the use of mark-selective fishing methods (e.g., develop new gear and methods 

for commercial fishing)

• Refine the coho harvest matrix to ensure that it adequately accounts for weaker 

components of the ESU

• Develop an abundance-based harvest approach for fall Chinook

• Continue to review harvest rates and base future rates on observed indicators in 

populations 

• Manage Columbia River fisheries by time, area, and gear to target hatchery fish 

• Fill information gaps regarding hatchery-origin spawner escapement, natural 

productivity, and harvest impact rates

Direct mortality: Harvest

• Redistribute nesting tern colonies in the Columbia River estuary

• Reduce double-crested cormorant habitat in the Columbia River estuary and encourage 

dispersal to other locations

• Reduce pinniped predation on salmon and steelhead

• Manage pikeminnow and other piscivorous fish to reduce predation on salmonids (e.g., 

modify habitat, increase pikeminnow bounty program)

• Evaluate ecological interactions between hatchery-origin and natural-origin salmon and 

steelhead in the Columbia River estuary

Ecological Direct mortality: Predation

Interactions

• Implement regulatory, control, and education measures to control introduced, invasive, 

or exotic species and prevent new invasions 

Direct mortality: Predation, pathogens

Food: Competition

Food: Altered prey composition and diversity
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-6

12.1.1 Washington Management Unit Plan

The Washington management unit plan identifies 117 strategies (see Chapter 5, 

“Strategies and Measures,” of LCFRB 2010a) and 365 actions (see the table in Chapter 10, 

“Implementation,” Section 10.9, of LCFRB 2010a) that address threats in the following 

general categories:

• Tributary habitat 

• Estuary/mainstem habitat

• Hydropower 

• Harvest 

• Hatcheries 

• Ecological interactions (including predation)

• Climate and ocean conditions

These include the 23 actions called for in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan 

Module (NMFS 2011a). All actions are expected to be completed within 25 years, 

although the effects of the actions may not be realized for some time thereafter. 

Management actions in the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s geographic area of 

responsibility are discussed further in Chapters 5 and 10 (“Strategies and Measures” and 

“Implementation”) of LCFRB (2010a). 

12.1.2 Oregon Management Unit Plan

Like the Washington management unit plan, the Oregon management unit plan (ODFW 

2010) orients its actions around threat categories. Actions are identified in the 

management unit plan—and costs estimated—for the following general categories 

of threats:

• Tributary habitat, including habitat protection and restoration

• Harvest

• Hatchery effects

• Predation

The Oregon management unit plan identifies 14 strategies and 308 management actions 

(see Tables 7-1, 7-3, and 9-3 in ODFW 2010). Of the 308 actions, 23 are actions called for 

in the estuary module (NMFS 2011a), and 18 are reasonable and prudent alternative 

actions brought forward from the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2008f). All 

actions are expected to be completed within 25 years, although the effects of the actions 

may not be realized for some time thereafter. 

Management actions in Oregon are discussed further in Chapters 7, 8, and 9 (“Strategies 

and Actions” “Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation,” and “Implementation”) of 

ODFW (2010).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-7

12.1.3 White Salmon Management Unit Plan

The strategy for recovery actions in the White Salmon River consists of seven 

fundamental components:

• Assessment of pre-dam removal fish populations and habitat conditions

• Removal of Condit Dam

• Reintroduction of fish into the reaches formerly blocked by Condit Dam

• Assessment of actions needed for recovery once the dam is removed

• Habitat restoration of the reaches located under the current reservoir 

(Northwestern Lake) and below Condit Dam

• Habitat restoration in the reaches above Northwestern Lake to support 

reintroduced fish

• Assessments and monitoring of conditions to determine whether implemented 

actions are working and sufficient

The removal of Condit Dam is central and essential to the White Salmon recovery 

strategy. The decision to decommission the dam was made by the dam’s owner 

(PacifiCorp) after comparing the benefits of continued operation with the cost to install 

fish ladders as proposed during relicensing negotiations with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. The dam’s removal is considered a baseline action because it is 

not an action called for under the recovery plan and would occur regardless. Its removal 

presents an opportunity to reintroduce salmon into historical habitat blocked by the 

dam’s original construction. The White Salmon plan’s strategy and recovery 

management actions cannot succeed without the dam being removed. 

The White Salmon management unit plan (NMFS 2013) identifies 14 strategies (see Table 

6-1 of NMFS 2013) and 52 management actions (see Table 7-2 of NMFS 2013). 

Assessments will further inform actions needed for recovery. The majority of actions 

will be implemented within 5 years of removal of Condit Dam, which took place in 

September 2012. Additional actions may be identified after that time period, depending 

on the results of monitoring and evaluation activities. Recovery of the species in the 

White Salmon subbasin is expected to occur over decades. Natural recolonization is the 

preferred reintroduction option for spring Chinook, coho, and chum, while 

reintroduction using hatchery-origin adults is the preferred option for fall Chinook.

Management actions for the White Salmon subbasin are discussed further in Chapters 6 

and 7 (“Recovery Actions and Strategies” and “Implementation and Cost Estimates”) of 

the White Salmon management unit plan (NMFS 2013). 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-8

12.1.4 Estuary Module

The Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 

2011a) presents 23 management actions or strategies, each supported by two to five 

programmatic “conceptual-level projects” (see Table 5-1 of NMFS 2011a). All actions are 

expected to be completed within 25 years, although the effects of the actions may not be 

realized for some time thereafter. Many of these actions and strategies call for a 

methodical approach of data collection, study, and careful design before projects are 

implemented on the ground so as to provide the maximum assurance that the actions 

implemented will be biologically effective. Consequently, the scope and nature of a 

project could change as better information is collected.

Because the actions in the estuary module have basinwide scope and are expected to 

benefit all 13 listed ESUs and DPSs in the Columbia Basin, the estuary module is 

incorporated by reference into all Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead recovery plans. 

For more information on management actions in the Columbia River estuary and plume, 

see Chapter 5 of the estuary module (NMFS 2011a). 

12.2 Cost Estimates

This section provides 5-year and total cost estimates as called for under ESA and NOAA 

Interim Recovery Planning Guidance, version 1.3, dated June 2010. 

Cost estimates for recovery projects were provided by the management unit planners

where information was sufficient to allow reasonable estimates to be made. In some 

cases this was done in coordination with a NMFS economist at the Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center in Seattle and with input and review from in-house and/or 

regional experts. 

Recovery planners developed cost estimates for recovery actions using the methods 

described in each management unit plan and summarized below. Although some 

management unit plans display the cost of baseline actions because they are necessary 

for recovery, 2 the costs of baseline actions are not included in the cost estimates. 

Administrative costs are treated differently in each management unit plan. The 

administrative costs for actions identified in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery 

Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) are embedded in the action cost 

estimate. The Washington management unit plan addresses administrative 

coordination, direction, and tracking as line-item costs. The Oregon and White Salmon 

management unit plans use mixed approaches, with some administrative costs 

specifically identified while others are embedded in action cost estimates. 

Research, monitoring, and evaluation costs also vary among the management unit plans. 

In many cases, RME costs have yet to be determined. Those that can be estimated at this 

 

2 “Baseline actions” are those programs that are already in existence or that would occur regardless of 

recovery plans.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-9

point are included in the management unit plans and incorporated into the estimates 

shown below.

All yearly costs identified in the management unit plans are presented in present-year 

dollars (that is, without adjusting for inflation). The total costs are the sum of the yearly 

costs without applying a discount rate. 

The total estimated cost of recovery actions for the four threatened species found in the 

lower Columbia River over the next 25 years is about $2.1 billion, of which about $614

million is anticipated to be needed in the first 5 years (see Table 12-2). These estimates 

include expenditures by local, tribal, state, and federal governments, private business, 

and individuals in implementing capital projects and non-capital work, as well as 

administrative costs for supervision and coordination. The total costs in Table 12-2

include $592 million ($164 in the first 5 years) for implementation of actions in the 

estuary module (NMFS 2011a); these actions have basinwide scope and are expected to 

benefit all 13 listed ESUs and DPSs in the Columbia Basin but are included in Table 12-2

because of their shared geography with the Lower Columbia River ESUs. Not included 

in Table 12-2 are expenses associated with implementing the 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion and its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 2008f and 2010a).

Note that all estimates in Table 12-2 and the subsequent discussion are rounded to the 

nearest million. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-10

Table 12-2

Summary of Cost Estimates 

Management Unit 5-Year Cost Estimate

(millions)

25-Year Cost Estimate

(millions)

Washington (LCFRB 2010a)3 $245 $738

Oregon (ODFW 2010)4,5 $189 $758

White Salmon (NMFS 2013)

6 $16 $16

Estuary Module (NMFS 2011a)7 $164 $592

TOTAL $614 $2,104

These estimates are based on the best available information at the time the management 

unit plans were completed and are expected to change as implementation plans are 

developed and actions are more clearly scoped and planned. It is therefore likely that 

estimated costs will increase substantially given the significant number of actions for 

which no costs could be estimated at the time of plan completion.

The cost estimates in each management unit plan are summarized below.

12.2.1 Washington Management Unit Plan

The Washington management unit plan (LCFRB 2010a) provides estimated costs for 

actions undertaken solely to address salmon recovery. The plan does not estimate

baseline costs, i.e., costs for actions that may be critical to recovery efforts but are 

mandated by laws, regulations, or policy directives other than Endangered Species Act 

recovery plans and would thus occur irrespective of recovery planning efforts. 

 

3 The Washington management unit plan estimated costs for a short-term (10-year) and long-term (25-year) 

period. The 5-year estimate shown in Table 12-2 is extrapolated by dividing the 10-year estimate in half. 

NMFS worked with Washington recovery planners to add a 2 percent operations and maintenance cost 

factor to capital projects, beginning with the estimated project completion date. This addition made the 

Washington management unit plan consistent with the other management unit plans.

4 The 5-year estimate was extrapolated from Table 9-3 of ODFW (2010). The estimate for the 25-year period

includes a 2 percent maintenance cost factor added to capital projects, beginning with the estimated project 

completion date.

5 Table 9-3 of ODFW (2010) indicates a number of actions scheduled to begin within the next 5, 10, 15, or 25 

years. For the purposes of this table, unless otherwise specified, all are assumed to begin the first year the 

plan is put into effect. 

6 Most actions in the White Salmon management unit plan will occur within 5 years of removal of Condit 

Dam, which took place in September 2012. This table assumes that all actions, including the dam’s removal, 

will occur within the first 5 years of plan implementation. Additional actions may be added pending the 

results of RME and assessment efforts.

7 The 5-year estimate is extrapolated from Tables 5-6 and 6-7 of the estuary module (NMFS 2011a).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-11

Dam operational improvements and predation management actions are addressed in the 

2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 2008f and 2010a), 

NMFS hydropower module, and FERC licensing agreements and are considered 

baseline costs. Estuary costs are quoted from the estuary module cost estimates for 

informational purposes only; they are not included in the management unit plan totals 

indicated below or in the Washington management unit costs in Table 12-2.

Research and monitoring needs are expected to be met largely through a combination of 

new and ongoing efforts by federal and state agencies, local governments, and research 

organizations, the outlays for which are considered baseline costs. Additional research 

and monitoring are anticipated to fill information gaps not addressed by existing 

programs. The costs for this additional effort will be estimated once more complete 

information is available. (LCFRB 2010a, Volume I, Section 11.7)

The costs for stream habitat restoration are estimated on a cost-per-mile basis developed 

from habitat project assessments conducted for selected subbasins in the region (the 

Lower Cowlitz River [Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 2007], Lower East Fork 

Lewis River [Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 2009b], Abernathy and Germany 

Creeks [Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 2009a], and Grays River [Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board 2009c]). For each subbasin, habitat improvement targets 

identified for each species were used to estimate miles of stream treatment consistent 

with recovery. Estimates included initial project implementation and long-term 

maintenance costs. Costs for fishery- and hatchery-related recovery costs were estimated 

for those actions outside of baseline fishery and hatchery management programs from 

data provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and its draft 

Conservation and Sustainable Fishery Plan. Estimates for implementation coordination 

and administration are provided.

The Washington management unit plan envisions a 25-year implementation period and 

provides cost estimates for the near term (the first 10 years) and long term (years 11 

through 25). The total estimated cost for the 25-year implementation period for recoveryrelated habitat, fishery, and hatchery actions and associated coordination and 

administration is $703 million (LCFRB 2010a, Volume I, Section 11.8). For this roll-up 

plan, NMFS added post-construction maintenance costs, estimated at 2 percent per year 

for 15 years, to the costs for habitat restoration, for a total of $738 million.8 The estimated 

cost for the 2010-2014 period is $245 million. 

Cost estimates are discussed further in Chapter 11, “Costs,” of LCFRB (2010a). 

12.2.2 Oregon Management Unit Plan

The Oregon management unit plan envisions a 25-year time frame for recovery and 

conservation action implementation, with a formal assessment planned at the 12-year 

point. Action implementation is presented as occurring currently (i.e., “ongoing”); 

immediately after plan adoption; in 5-, 10-, 15-, and 25-year time frames; or in a specific 

 

8 These maintenance costs were added to achieve consistency among management unit plans and were 

developed in coordination with Washington recovery planners.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-12

year (such as 2010). Cost estimates are provided for new actions or current program 

expansions that are called for in the recovery plan, unless there is not enough 

information for an estimate. Actions required under other statutes or programs are 

considered baseline costs and not included, although their successful implementation is 

considered necessary for the overall recovery effort.

Actions called for in the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and its 2010 Supplement (NMFS 

2008f and 2010a) are included in the management unit plan for informational purposes 

but not included in the management plan costs, which are indicated in Table 12-2 above 

or in Table 9-3 of ODFW (2010). Actions from the estuary module (NMFS 2011a) are 

presented in the Oregon management unit plan, but their costs are not included in the 

management unit plan totals below or in the Oregon management unit costs in Table 

12-2.. 

The cost estimating methodologies for tributary habitat actions consisted of either 

(a) calculation of the quantity of actions necessary and determination of unit costs, 

(b) expert opinion, or (c) applicable estimates from other plans. Costs for harvest, 

hatchery, and predation actions were based on the expert opinion and professional 

judgment of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The cost estimate includes a 

2 percent maintenance cost for capital projects for 20 years.

The total cost for the 25-year implementation period, not including baseline estuary or 

hydropower actions, is estimated to be $758 million. The estimated cost for the first 

5 years is $189 million. 

For further discussion of Oregon management unit plan cost estimates, see Chapter 9 

(“Implementation”) of ODFW (2010), including, Section 9.1 (“Action Details: Locations, 

Schedule, Costs, and Potential Implementers”) and Table 9-3.

12.2.3 White Salmon Management Unit Plan

The decommissioning and removal of Condit Dam is central to the White Salmon 

recovery strategy. The costs of dam removal are being born by the PacifiCorp power 

company. 

Removal of Condit Dam and associated reintroduction and habitat improvement actions 

are estimated to cost between $12 and $15 million. Additional habitat restoration and 

harvest and hatchery management actions are estimated to cost about $14 million. 

Numerous RME actions are identified in the White Salmon management unit plan. The 

results of studies will help with prioritization of actions within the subbasin. It is 

estimated that the RME actions will cost roughly $2 million over a 5-year period. 

Because dam removal is considered a baseline action, Table 12-2 includes only the 

additional habitat restoration and harvest and hatchery management action and RME 

cost estimates. The total estimated cost for the first 5-year period for restoring 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-13

anadromous populations in the White Salmon River, not counting the baseline action of 

Condit Dam removal, is estimated to be about $16 million.9

Additional costs for recovery are likely to be incurred beyond the initial 5-year period. 

These costs cannot be estimated until the RME has been completed.

For further discussion of cost estimates for the White Salmon subbasin, see Chapter 7 of 

NMFS (2013), specifically Section 7.2 (“Costs”) and Tables 7-1 and 7-2. 

12.2.4 Estuary Module

Cost estimates in the Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and 

Steelhead (NMFS 2011a) address direct, incremental costs of actions over and above 

baseline activities. Most of the estimates provided were developed by the consulting 

firm PC Trask & Associates, Inc., and members of the Lower Columbia Estuary

Partnership, based on action implementation experience and historical records. Other 

estimates were provided by federal agency experts, most notably NMFS and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Total costs for actions in the estuary module are estimated at $528 million over the 

module’s 25-year planning horizon. This estimate includes the costs of actions that are 

currently being implemented or that have already been completed, with implementation 

having begun in 2006. The cost estimate for the 5-year period 2010 to 2014, extrapolated 

from Table 5-6 of the estuary module, is $149 million. 

Some of the module actions identified above include RME projects and associated cost 

estimates that are included in the estuary action cost estimates identified above. Table 6-

6 of the estuary module identifies additional monitoring needs not directly associated 

with other actions. The estimated cost of these additional RME actions is $64 million 

over the module’s 25-year planning horizon. The portion of this cost occurring over the 

period 2010 to 2014, as extrapolated from Table 6-7 of the estuary module, is about 

$15 million. 

The total estimate for estuary actions and RME is $592 over the module’s 25-year 

planning horizon, with $164 million estimated for the period 2010 to 2014. Although 

costs of implementing estuary module actions are included in this recovery plan for 

Lower Columbia River ESUs, the actions in the estuary module are expected to benefit 

all 13 listed ESUs and DPSs in the Columbia Basin and the estuary module is 

incorporated by reference into all Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead recovery plans.

For further discussion of the estuary module’s cost estimates, see Table 5-6 of the 

module (NMFS 2011a). 

 

9 Totals do not sum because of rounding.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

12-14

12.3 Time Estimate

There are unique characteristics and challenges in estimating the time required for 

salmon and steelhead recovery given the complex relationship of these fish to their 

environment and to human activities in the water and on land. Examples of the 

uncertainties that preclude a more precise estimate of time include biological and 

ecosystem responses to recovery actions and the unknown impacts of future economic, 

demographic, and social developments. 

Consequently, the management unit plans provide a 25-year period for action 

implementation. The management unit authors believe, and NMFS concurs, that it may 

take longer than 25 years for the biological effects of management actions to be fully 

realized and for recovery of Lower Columbia River salmonid species to occur. Rather 

than speculate on conditions that may or may not exist that far into the future, this 

recovery plan relies on ongoing monitoring and periodic plan review regimes to add, 

eliminate, or modify actions through adaptive management as information becomes 

available and until such time as the protection of the Endangered Species Act is no 

longer required.

NMFS believes it most appropriate to focus on the first 5 years of implementation and in 

5-year intervals thereafter, with the understanding that before the end of each 5-year 

implementation period, specific actions and costs will be estimated for subsequent years.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-1

13. References

Allee, B. 2011. Cumulative Impact of Hatchery Origin Fish on Natural Origin Fish in the 

Columbia River Estuary. National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region, Portland 

OR. 

Barnhart, R.A. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — Steelhead. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, TR EL-B2-4. USFWS Biological Report 82(11.60), 21 pp. 

Beacham, T.D., and C.B. Murray. 1987. Adaptive Variation in Body Size, Age, 

Morphology, Egg Size, and Developmental Biology of Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) 

in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:244-261.

Beamer, E., A. McBride, C. Greene, R. Henderson, G. Hood, K. Wolf, K. Larsen, C. Rice, 

and K. Fresh. 2005. Delta and Nearshore Restoration for the Recovery of Wild Skagit 

River Chinook Salmon: Linking Estuary Restoration to Wild Chinook Salmon 

Populations. Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, Washington. 

Beamesderfer, R.C., D.L. Ward, and A.A. Nigro. 1996. Evaluation of the Biological Basis 

for a Predator Control Program on Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychochelius oregonensis) in 

the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

53:2898-2908.

Beechie, T.J., M. Ruckelshaus, E. Buhle, A. Fullerton, and L. Holsinger. 2006. Hydrologic 

Regime and the Conservation of Salmon Life History Diversity. Biological Conservation 

130(4):560-572.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society 

Monograph. 6, 275 p. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Berejikian, B.A., and M.J. Ford. 2004. Review of Relative Fitness of Hatchery and Natural 

Salmon. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-61, 28 pp.

Berejikian, B.A., Tatara, C.P., and Lee, J.S.F. 2009. Status of Science of Ecological 

Interactions between Hatchery and Natural Origin Anadromous Pacific Salmonids: 

Mechanisms, Spatial Scales and Information Gaps. 14 p. 

Bilby, R.E., B.R Fransen, and P.A. Bisson. 1996. Incorporation of Nitrogen and Carbon 

from Spawning Coho Salmon into the Trophic System of Small Streams. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 164-173.

Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 2004. Final Updated Proposed Action for the FCRPS Biological Opinion 

Remand. Portland, OR. 

Bottom, D.L., C.A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A.M Baptista, D.A. Jay, K.K. Jones, E. Casillas, 

and M.H. Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at River’s End: The Role of the Estuary in Decline and 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-2

Recovery of Columbia River Salmon. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA technical 

memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-68, 246p. 

Bottom, D.L., G. Anderson, A. Baptista, J. Burke, M. Burla, M. Bhuthimethee, 

L. Campbell, E. Casillas, S. Hinton, K. Jacobson, D. Jay, R. McNatt, P. Moran, G.C. 

Roegner, C.A. Simenstad, V. Stamatiou, D. Teel, and J. E. Zamon. 2008. Salmon Life 

Histories, Habitat, and Food Webs in the Columbia River Estuary: An Overview of 

Research Results, 2002-2006. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.

Burgner, R.L., J.T. Light, L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tautz, and S. Ito. 1992. Distribution 

and Origins of Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Offshore Waters of the North 

Pacific Ocean. Bulletin No. 51, International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Busack, C., and K. P. Currens. 1995. Genetic Risks and Hazards in Hatchery Operations: 

Fundamental Concepts and Issues. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15:71-80.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, E.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, 

and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, 

Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum 27.

Busch, D. S., M. Sheer, K. Burnett, P. McElhany, and T. Cooney. 2011. Landscape-Level 

Model to Predict Spawning Habitat for Lower Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). River Research and Applications. Published online in Wiley 

Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/rra.1597.

Carter, J.A., G.A. McMichael, I.D. Welch, R.A. Harnish, and B.J. Bellgraph. 2009. 

Seasonal Juvenile Salmonid Presence and Migratory Behavior in the Lower Columbia 

River. PNNL 18246, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. Prepared for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District.

Cederholm, C.J., M.D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific Salmon 

Carcasses: Essential Contributions of Nutrients and Energy for Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Ecosystems. Fisheries 24 (10): 6-15.

Center for Whale Research. Photo-identification of Southern Resident Killer Whales. 

www.whaleresearch.com/research.html. Viewed January 27, 2012.

Chang, H., and J. Jones. 2010. Climate Change and Freshwater Resources in Oregon. 

Pages 69-149 in Oregon Climate Assessment Report, Oregon Climate Change Research 

Institute, K.D. Dello and P.W. Mote, editors. College of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Sciences, www.occri.net/OCAR.

Chilcote, M.W. 1999. Conservation Status of Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division Information Report 99-3, 41p. 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-3

Chilcote, M.W., K.W. Goodson, and M.R. Falcy. 2011. Reduced Recruitment Performance 

in Natural Populations of Anadromous Salmonids Associated with Hatchery-reared 

Fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:511-522.

Climate Impacts Group. 2004. Overview of Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. Pacific 

Northwest. University of Washington. Seattle, WA www.cses.washington/edu/cig.

Climate Impacts Group. 2009. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. 

M. Elsner, J. Littell, and L. Whitely Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, 

Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, 

Seattle, Washington. Available at: 

http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciareport681.pdf.

Collis, K., and D.D. Roby. 2006. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian 

Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid-Columbia River. Bonneville Power 

Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Draft 2005 season summary. 

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1990. Review of the History, Development, 

and Management of Anadromous Fish Production Facilities in the Columbia River 

Basin. Unpublished manuscript, 52 p., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 2010. Revised Work Plan for Coordinated 

Assessments for Salmon and Steelhead. June 17, 2010.

Cooney, T.D., and D. Holzer. 2011. Lower Columbia Tule Chinook Populations: 

Estimating Intertidal Rearing Capacities and Survival Rates. March 4, 2011. NMFS 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Cramer, D.P., and S.P. Cramer. 1994. Status and Population Dynamics of Coho Salmon 

in the Clackamas River. Technical Report, Portland General Electric Company, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Crawford, B.A., and S.M. Rumsey. 2011. Guidance for Monitoring Recovery of Pacific 

Northwest Salmon & Steelhead listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. January 2011. Available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/upload/RME-Guidance.pdf. 

Crozier, L. 2011. Literature Review for 2010 Citations for BIOP: Biological Effects of 

Climate Change. Attachment 1 of FCRPS Biological Opinion 2010 Annual Progress 

Report (p. 148-203). Available at: http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/

Files/BiologicalOpinions/2010/2010_FCRPS_APR_Section_2_Final.pdf.

Currens, K. P., A.R. Hemmingsen, R.A. French, D.V. Buchanan, C.R. Schreck, and H.W. 

Li. 1997. Introgression and Susceptibility to Disease in a Wild Population of Rainbow 

Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:1065-1078.

Dawley, E.M., R.D. Ledgerwood, T.H. Blahm, C.W. Sims, J.T. Durkin, R.A. Kim, A.E. 

Rankin, G.E. Monan, and F.J. Ossiander. 1986. Migrational Characteristics, Biological 

Observations, and Relative Survival of Juvenile Salmonids Entering the Columbia River 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-4

Estuary, 1966-1983. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.

Dorcey, A.H.J., T.G. Northcote, and D.V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser River Marshes 

Essential to Salmon? University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada. 

Elsner, M.M., L. Cuo, N. Voisin, J.S. Deems, A.F. Hamlet, J.A Vano, K.E.B. Michelson, S. 

Lee, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2009. Implications of 21st Century Climate change for the 

Hydrology of Washington State. Pages 69–106 in M.M. Elsner, J. Littell, and L.W. Binder 

(editors). The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Center for Science in 

the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University 

of Washington, Seattle.

Emmett, R. L., R. D. Brodeur, and P. M. Orton. 2004. The Vertical Distribution of Juvenile 

Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and Associated Fishes in the Columbia River Plume. 

Fisheries Oceanography. 13:392–402. 

Feely, R., C. Sabine, J. Hernandez-Ayon, D. Ianson, and B. Hales. 2008. Evidence for 

Upwelling of Corrosive “Acidified” Water onto the Continental Shelf. Science 320: 1490-

1492.

Flagg, T.A., B.A. Berejikian, J.E. Colt, W.W. Dickhoff, L.W. Harrell, D.J. Maynard, C.E. 

Nash, M.S. Strom, R.N Iwamoto, and C.V.W. Mahnken. 2000. Ecological and Behavioral 

Impacts of Artificial Production Strategies on the Abundance of Wild Salmon 

Populations. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC- 41, 92 pp. 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm41/tm41.htm.

Flagg, T.A., F.W. Waknitz, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and C.V. Mahnken. 1995. The 

Effect of Hatcheries on Native Coho Salmon Populations in the Lower Columbia River. 

In: Schramm, H.I. and Piper, R.G., eds. Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic 

Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15. Bethesda, Maryland. 

Ford, J.K., G.M. Ellis., P. F. Olesiuk, and K.C. Balcomb III. 2009. Linking Killer Whale 

Survival and Prey Abundance: Food Limitation in the Oceans’ Apex Predator? Biology 

Letters doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0468. 

Ford, J.K.B., and G.M. Ellis. 2006. Selective Foraging by Fish-eating Killer Whales 

Orcinus orca in British Columbia. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 316, pages 185 

to 199. 

Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, and K.C. Balcomb. 2000. Killer Whales: The Natural History and 

Genealogy of Orcinus orca in British Columbia and Washington State. 2nd ed. UBC 

Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Ford, M., N. Sands, P. McElhany, R. Kope, D. Simmons, P. Dygert. 2007. Analyses to 

Support a Review of an ESA Jeopardy Consultation on Fisheries Impacting Lower 

Columbia River Tule Chinook Salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service. October 5. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-5

Ford, M.J. (Ed.). 2011. Status Review Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed 

Under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-NWFSC-113, 281 pp. November 2011.

Fresh, K. L., and S. L. Schroder. 1987. Influence of the Abundance, Size, and Yolk 

Reserves of Juvenile Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) on Predation by Freshwater 

Fishes in a Small Coastal Stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44.

Fresh, K.L. 1997. The Role of Competition and Predation in the Decline of Pacific Salmon 

and Steelhead. In D.J. Stouder, P.A. Bisson, and R.J. Naiman (editors), Pacific Salmon 

and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, pp. 245-275. Chapman Hall, New 

York.

Fresh, K.L., E. Casillas, L.L. Johnson, and D.L. Bottom. 2005. Role of the Estuary in the 

Recovery of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: An Evaluation of the Effects of 

Selected Factors on Salmonid Population Viability. NOAA technical memorandum, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA. 

136 pp.

Friesen, T.A., and D.L. Ward. 1999. Management of Northern Pikeminnow and 

Implications for Juvenile Salmonid Survival in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:406-420.

Fritts, A., and T. Pearsons. 2008. Can Non-native Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieu, 

Be Swamped by Hatchery Fish Releases to Increase Juvenile Chinook Salmon, 

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Survival? Environmental Biology of Fishes 83(4):485-494.

Garrison, R.C., and M.M. Rosentreter. 1981. Stock Assessment and Genetic Studies of 

Anadromous Salmonids. Pages 66. Federal Aid Progress Rpts Fisheries, 1980. Oregon 

Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Fish Div, Portland.

Geiger, R.D. 1973. Streamflow Requirements for Salmonids. OR Wildl. Comm., Job. Final 

Rep. Proj. AFS 62-1, Portland, Oregon. 117p. 

Genovese, P.V., and R.L. Emmett. 1997. Desktop Geographic Information System for 

Salmonid Resources in the Columbia River Basin. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-34.

Gilbreath, L., and E. Prentice. 1999. Post Construction Evaluation of the Modified 

Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse Juvenile Bypass System. In Abstracts, Anadromous 

Fish Evaluations Program 1999 Annual Research Review, November 1999. (Available 

from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA.)

Glick, P., J. Clough, and B. Nunley. 2007. Sea-level Rise and Coastal Habitats in the 

Pacific Northwest: An Analysis for Puget Sound, Southwestern Washington, and 

Northwestern Oregon. National Wildlife Federation, Western Natural Resource Center 

6 Nickerson Street, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98109. Available at: 

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Water/200707_PacificNWSeaLevelRise_Report.

ashx.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-6

Goede, R.W. 1986. Management Considerations in Stocking of Diseased or Carrier Fish. 

Pages 349-355 in R. H. Stroud, ed. Fish Culture in Fisheries Management. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Hamm, D.E. 2012. Development and Evaluation of a Data Dictionary to Standardize 

Salmonid Habitat Assessments in the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries. Volume 37, Issue 1, 

2012.

Hanson, B., J. Hempelmann-Halos, and D. Van Doornik. 2010b. Species and Stock 

Identification of Scale/Tissue Samples from Southern Resident Killer Whale Predation 

Events Collected off the Washington Coast during PODs 2009 Cruise on the McArthur 

II. Unpublished memorandum. March 16, 2010. 

Hanson, M.B., R.W. Baird, C. Emmons, J. Hempelmann, G.S. Schorr, J. Sneva, and D.Van 

Doornik. 2007. Summer Diet and Prey Stock Identification of the Fisheating “Southern 

Resident” Killer Whales: Addressing a Key Recovery Need Using Fish Scales, Fecal 

Samples, and Genetic Techniques. Abstract from the 17th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, Capetown, South Africa.

Hanson, M.B., R.W. Baird, J.K.B. Ford, J. Hempelmann-Halos, D.M. Van Doornik, J.R. 

Candy, C. K. Emmons, G.S. Schorr, B. Gisborne, K.L. Ayres, S.K. Wasser, K.C. Balcomb, 

K. Balcomb-Bartok, J.G. Sneva, and M.J. Ford. 2010a. Species and Stock Identification of 

Prey Consumed by Endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales in Their Summer 

Range. Endangered Species Research. Volume 11, pages 69 to 82. 

Hatchery Scientific Review Group. 2006. Columbia River Hatchery Reform Project 

Progress Report. April 17, 2006. 

Hatchery Scientific Review Group. 2007. Preview of Key Findings for Lower Columbia 

River Hatchery Programs. Memo prepared by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group for 

the Columbia River Hatchery Reform Steering Committee. July 18, 2007.

Hatchery Scientific Review Group. 2009. Columbia River Hatchery Reform System-wide 

Report. February 2009. Available at: 

http://www.hatcheryreform.us/hrp/reports/system/welcome_show.action.

Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in the Estuaries: The Life Support System. In 

Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, Inc., New York. 

Hixon, M.A., S. Gregory, and W. Robinson. 2010. Oregon’s Fish and Wildlife in a 

Changing Climate. Pages 256-358 in K.D. Dello and P.W. Mote (editors). Oregon Climate 

Assessment Report. Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, College of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. www. occri.net/OCAR.

Hulett, P.L., R.H. Bradford, C.W. Wagemann, and S.A. Leider. 1993. Studies of Hatchery 

and Wild Steelhead in the Lower Columbia Region. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Management Division 93-12. (Available from WDFW, 600 Capital Way N., 

Olympia, WA 98501).
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-7

Huppert, D., A. Moore, and K. Dyson. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on the Coasts of 

Washington State. P. 285-309. In: M. Elsner, J. Littell, and L. Whitely Binder (eds). The 

Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Center for Science in the Earth 

System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of 

Washington, Seattle, Washington. Available at: 

http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciareport681.pdf.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2007a. Climate Change Impacts on Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB Climate Change Report, ISAB 2007-2. Prepared by 

the Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 

May 11, 2007. 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2007b. Human Population Impacts on Columbia 

Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB Report 2007-3. Prepared by the Independent Scientific 

Advisory Board for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River 

Basin Indian Tribes, and National Marine Fisheries Service. June 8, 2007.

Integrated Hatchery Operations Team. 1995. Policy and Procedures for Columbia Basin 

Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries. Annual report 1994 to the Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project # 93-043.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller [eds.]). Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available at: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_rep

ort_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Glossary. Annex 1 In: B. Metz, O.R. 

Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds). Contribution of Working Group III to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007c. Glossary. Appendix I In: 

M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds). 

Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working 

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 976 pp.

Interior Columbia TRT. 2005. Viability Criteria for Application to Interior Columbia 

Basin Salmonid ESUs. Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team NOAA-NWFSC, 

Seattle, WA. 

Iwamoto, R.N., and J.G. Williams. 1993. Juvenile Salmonids Passage and Survival 

Through Turbines. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR, Contract 

E86920049, 27 p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake 

Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-8

Jay, D.A., and P. Naik. 2002. Separating Human and Climate Impacts on Columbia River 

Hydrology and Sediment Transport. Pp. 38-48 in G. Gelfenbaum and G. Kaminsky, eds., 

Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Workshop Report 2000, U.S. Geological Survey 

Open File Report, 02-229. 308 pp.

Jay, D.A., and T. Kukulka. 2003. Impacts of Columbia River Discharge on Salmonid 

Habitat. Manuscript submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research. Revised 2003. 

Jeffries, S.J. 1984. Marine Mammals of the Columbia River Estuary. Final report on the 

marine mammals work unit of the Columbia River estuary data development program. 

Washington Department of Game. Olympia, WA. 

Jeffries, S.J., P.J. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Seal and 

Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Johnson, G.E., H.L. Diefenderfer, B.D. Ebberts, C. Tortorici. T. Yerxa, J. Leary, and J.R. 

Skalski. 2008. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation for the Federal Columbia River 

Estuary Program Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory under a Related Services Agreement with the U.S. 

Department of Energy Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District with the collaboration 

of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. January 31, 2008.

Johnson, G.E., R.M. Thom, A.H. Whiting, G.B. Sutherland, T. Berquam, B.D. Ebberts, M. 

Ricci, J.A. Southard, and J.D. Wilcox. 2003. An Ecosystem-based Approach to Habitat 

Restoration Projects with Emphasis on Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. Final 

draft prepared by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Columbia River Estuary 

Study Taskforce, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Bonneville Power 

Administration, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Joint Columbia River Management Staff (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011. 2011 Joint Status Report: Stock 

Status and Fisheries for Fall Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Chum Salmon, Summer 

Steelhead and White Sturgeon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. July 13, 2011. 

Jones, Rob. 2011. 2010 5-Year Reviews: Updated Evaluation of the Relatedness of Pacific 

Northwest Hatchery Programs to 18 Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units and 

Steelhead Distinct Population Segments Listed Under the Endangered Species Act. 

Memo to Donna Darm. June 29, 2011. 

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States. Cambridge University Press. Available at: 

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts.

Knudsen, E.E. 2002. Ecological Perspectives on Pacific Salmon: Can We Sustain 

Biodiversity and Fisheries? Pages 277-320 In K.D. Lynch, M.L. Jones, and W.W. Taylor, 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-9

editors. Sustaining North American Salmon: Perspectives across Regions and 

Disciplines. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Krahn, M.M., et al. 2002. Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) 

under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-54. 

Krahn, M.M., J.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, 

G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status Review of 

Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWF-SC-62, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

Krahn, M.M., M.B. Hanson, R.W. Baird, R.H. Boyer, D.G. Burrows, C.E. Emmons, J.K.B. 

Ford, L.L. Jones, D.P. Noren, P.S. Ross, G.S. Schorr, and T.K. Collier. 2007. Persistent 

Organic Pollutants and Stable Isotopes in Biopsy Samples (2005/2006) from Southern 

Resident Killer Whales. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 54, pages 1903 to 1911.

Lampman, B. 1946. The Coming of the Pond Fishes. Benford and Mart, Portland, OR.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the 

Environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C

Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising Adaptive Management. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 3. 

Available at http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/ 

Leider, S.A., M.W. Chilcote, and J L. Loch. 1986. Comparative Life History 

Characteristics of Hatchery and Wild Steelhead Trout (Salmo gairdneri) of Summer and 

Winter Races in the Mid-Columbia Kalama River, Washington. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1398–1409.

Loge, F.J, M.R. Arkoosh, T.R. Ginn, L.L. Johnson, and T.K. Collier. 2005. Impact of 

Environmental Stressors on the Dynamics of Disease Transmission. Environmental 

Science and Technology. 39:7329-7336.

Lohn, D. Robert. 2003. Testimony of D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest 

Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, before the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

United States Senate, on Tribal Fish and Wildlife Management Programs in the Pacific 

Northwest. June 4, 2003. 

Lohn, D. Robert. 2006. Personal communication. Letter from D. Robert Lohn, NMFS 

Regional Administrator, to Governor Christine Gregoire, Jeff Koennings, and George 

Trott regarding approval of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board plan. February 3, 

2006.

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2007. Lower Cowlitz River and Floodplain 

Habitat Restoration Project Siting and Design. Final revised report. Prepared for the 

Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group and Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-10

by Tetra Tech, Inc. December 2007. Available at 

http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/document_library_studies.htm.

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2009a. Abernathy and Germany Creeks 

Intensively Monitored Treatment Plan. Prepared for the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery 

Board, Longview, Washington, by HDR, Inc., and Cramer Fish Sciences. January 2009. 

Available at http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/document_library_studies.htm.

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2009b. Lower East Fork Lewis River Habitat 

Restoration Plan. Prepared by the East Fork Lewis Working Group. April 2009. 

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2009c. Grays River Habitat Restoration Technical 

Report. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., ENTRIX, Inc., and Waterfall Engineering, LLC. 

December 2009. Available at 

http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/document_library_studies.htm.

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2010a. Washington Lower Columbia Salmon 

Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 

Washington. May 28, 2010.

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2010b. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

Program for Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead. June 2010.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 2007. Lower Columbia River and Estuary 

Ecosystem Monitoring: Water Quality and Salmon Sampling Report.

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. F. Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on Key 

Aspects of Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Pages 217-254 in M.M. 

Elsner, J. Littell, and L.W. Binder (eds.). The Washington Climate Change Impacts 

Assessment. Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the 

Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle.

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2010. Climate Change Impacts on Streamflow 

Extremes and Summertime Stream Temperature and Their Possible Consequences for 

Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Climatic Change 102:187-223.

McCabe, G. T., Jr., W. D. Muir, et al. 1983. Interrelations Between Juvenile Salmonids 

and Nonsalmonid Fish in the Columbia River Estuary. Fish Bulletin 81.

McCabe, G.T., R.L. Emmett, W.D. Muir, and T.H. Blahm. 1986. Utilization of the 

Columbia River Estuary by Subyearling Chinook Salmon. Northwest Science 60:113-124.

McElhany, P., M. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42, 156 pp. 

June 2000. 

McElhany, P. 2005. Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU. In T.P. Good, R.S. Waples, and 

P. Adams, editors. Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and 

Steelhead. NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-11

McElhany, P. 2010. Personal communication with Patty Dornbusch. August 9, 2010.

McElhany, P., and 11 coauthors. 2003. Interim Report on Viability Criteria for Willamette 

and Lower Columbia Basin Pacific Salmonids. Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical 

Recovery Team Interim Report. NOAA Fisheries, Portland.

McElhany, P., and 11 coauthors. 2006. Revised Viability Criteria for Salmon and 

Steelhead in the Willamette and Lower Columbia Basins. Willamette/Lower Columbia 

Technical Recovery Team and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. NOAA 

Fisheries, Portland. Review draft. April 1, 2006.

McElhany, P., M. Chilcote, J. Myers, and R. Beamesderfer. 2007. Viability Status of 

Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia 

Basins. Prepared for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine 

Fisheries Service. September 2007.

McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckelshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. 

Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA technical memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-42, 

156 p.

McElhany, P., T. Backman, C. Busack, S. Kolmes, J. Myers, D. Rawding, A. Steel, C. 

Steward, T. Whitesel, and C. Willis. 2004. Status Evaluation of Salmon and Steelhead 

Populations in the Willamette and Lower Columbia River Basins. Willamette/Lower 

Columbia Technical Recovery Team report. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA 

Fisheries, Seattle. July 2004.

McMichael, G.A., R.A. Harnish, J.R. Skalski, K.A. Deters, K.D. Ham, R.L. Townsend, 

P.S. Titzler, M.S. Hughes, J. Kim, and D.M. Trott. 2011. Migratory Behavior and Survival 

of Juvenile Salmonids in the Lower Columbia River, Estuary, and Plume in 2010. 

Prepared by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Portland District, Portland Oregon. 

Miles, E.L., A.K. Snover, A.F. Hamlet, B.M. Callahan, and D.L. Fluharty. 2000. Pacific 

Northwest Regional Assessment: The Impacts of Climate Variability and Climate 

Change on the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association 36(2):399-420.

Mote, P., A. Petersen, S. Reeder, H. Shipman, and L.W. Binder. 2008. Sea Level Rise in 

the Coastal Waters of Washington State. University of Washington Climate Impacts 

Group and Washington Dept. of Ecology. Available at: 

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf.

Mote, P.W., and E.P. Salathe, Jr. 2009. Future Climate in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 21–

43 in M.M. Elsner, J. Littell, and L.W. Binder, editors. The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment. Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study 

of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-12

Mote, P.W., D. Gavin, and A. Huyer. 2010. Climate Change in Oregon’s Land and 

Marine Environments. Pages 1-45 in Oregon Climate Assessment Report, Oregon 

Climate Change Research Institute, K.D. Dello and P.W. Mote (eds). College of Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

www.occri.net/OCCAR.

Mote, P.W., D.J. Canning, D.L. Fluharty, R.C. Francis, J.F. Franklin, A.F. Hamlet, M. 

Hershman, M. Holmberg, K.N. Ideker, W.S. Keeton, D.P. Lettenmaier, L.R. Leung, N.J. 

Mantua, E.L. Miles, B. Noble, H. Parandvash, D. W. Peterson, A.K. Snover, and S.R. 

Willard. 1999. Impacts of Climate Variability and Change, Pacific Northwest. NOAA 

Office of Global Programs, and JISAO/SMA Climate Impacts Group, Seattle, WA. 110p.

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, K.N. Ideker, W.S. Keeton, D.P. Lettenmaier, N.J. 

Manua, E.L. Miles, D.W. Peterson, D.L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover. 2003. 

Preparing for Climate Change: The Water, Salmon, and Forests of the Pacific Northwest. 

Climatic Change 61:45-88. 

Myers, J., C. Busack, D. Rawding, A. Marshall, D. Teel, D.M. Van Doornik, and M.T. 

Maher. 2006. Historical Population Structure of Pacific Salmonids in the Willamette 

River and Lower Columbia River Basins. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-73, 311 pp. February 2006.

Naish, K.A., Taylor, J.E., Levin, P.S., Quinn, T.P., Winton, J.R., Huppert, D., and Hilborn, 

R. 2008. Advances in Marine Biology 53:61-141.

Narver, D.W. 1976. Stream Management for West Coast Anadromous Salmonids. Pages 

7-13 in Stream Management of Salmonids. Trout, Winter 1976 Suppl.

National Marine Fisheries Service 2009c. FCRPS Adaptive Management Implementation 

Plan. 2008-2018 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion. September 

11, 2009. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed 

Endangered Status for Five ESUs of Steelhead and Proposed Threatened Status for Five 

ESUs of Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Federal Register 

[Docket No. 960730210-6210-01, 9 August 1996]. Volume 61(155), page 41558. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Investigation of Scientific Information on the 

Impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and on the 

Coastal Ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-28. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Updated Review of the Status of the Upper 

Willamette River and the Middle Columbia River ESUs of Steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss). January 12, 1999, NMFS-NWFSC Status Review Update Memo, Available on the

Internet at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Biological-StatusReviews/upload/SR1999-steelhead.pdf.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-13

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000a. White Paper: Passage of Juvenile and Adult 

Salmonids Past Columbia and Snake River Dams. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, Washington, 98112-2097.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000b. Biological Opinion, Reinitiation of

Consultation on the Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, Including 

the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program, and 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the 

Columbia Basin.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004a. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species

Recovery Planning Guidance, Version 1.0. October 2004. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004b. Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects 

Evaluation Report. Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWR/SWR (NMFS 2004b). An 

Evaluation of the Effects of Artificial Propagation on the Status and Likelihood of 

Extinction of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead under the Federal Endangered Species 

Act. May 28, 2004. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005a. Draft Interim Regional Recovery Plan for 

Portions of Three Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Salmon and Steelhead—

Columbia River Chinook (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha), Columbia River Chum 

(Onchorhynchus keta), and Lower Columbia River Steelhead (Onchorhynchus 

mykiss)—within the Washington Lower Columbia Management Unit. National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service Supplement to the 

Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan. Prepared by 

National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region. April 15, 2005. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005b. Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) Status 

Review Update. NOAA Fisheries Biological Review Team, Santa Cruz Laboratory, 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center. February 2005. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005c. Final Assessment of NOAA Fisheries’ Critical 

Habitat Analytical Review Teams for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast 

Salmon and Steelhead, Appendix J: CHART Assessment for the Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead ESU. Prepared by NMFS Protected Resources Division. August, 2005. 

Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/CriticalHabitat/Redesignations/upload/F-CHART-STMCR.PDF.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon 

and Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance. Prepared by 

National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science

Center. May 1, 2007. Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-RecoveryPlanning/.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008a. Recovery Plan Module: Mainstem Columbia 

River Hydropower Projects. September 24, 2008.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008b. NOAA Fisheries 2008-2017 United States v. 

Oregon Management Agreement. May 5, 2008. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-14

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008c. Supplemental Comprehensive Analysis of the 

Federal Columbia River Power System and Mainstem Effects of U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation Upper Snake and Other Tributary Actions. NMFS, Portland, Oregon. May 

5, 2008. Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Hydropower/ColumbiaSnake-Basin/upload/Final_SCA_Ch1_7.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008d. Memo: Northwest Region Recovery 

Implementation Strategy. NMFS Northwest Region. February 26, 2008.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008e. Draft Environmental Assessment: Reducing 

the Impact on At-Risk Salmon and Steelhead by California Sea Lions in the Area 

Downstream of Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, Oregon and Washington. 

NMFS Northwest Region. January 11, 2008.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008f. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) 

Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation on Remand for Operation of the 

Federal Columbia River Power System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the 

Columbia Basin and ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation 

Program. NMFS, Portland, Oregon. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008g. Questions and Answers on the NOAA 

Fisheries Service Decision to Conduct an Endangered Species Act Status Review for the 

West Coast Eulachon (Smelt). March 2008. Available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/eulachon.cfm. Web site accessed 

March 16, 2010.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008h. Biological Opinion: Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) Section 7 Consultation Number F/NRW/2008/00486: Assessment of Impacts 

from Sea Lion Removal Program. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 

Protected Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008i. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer 

Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, 

Washington. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008k. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion: Eastern 

and Western Distinct Population Segments (Eumetopias jubatus). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009a. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct 

Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest 

Region. November 30, 2009.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009b. Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon. 

Final biological report. NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Resources Division, Long 

Beach, CA. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-15

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010a. Endangered Species Act—Section 7 

Consultation Supplemental Biological Opinion. Supplemental Consultation on Remand 

for Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation 

Projects in the Columbia Basin, and ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish 

Transportation Program. NMFS, Portland, Oregon. Available at https:// 

pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pctspub/pcts_upload.summary_list_biop?p_id=124302.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010b. Status Review Update for Eulachon in 

Washington, Oregon, and California. Prepared by the Eulachon Biological Review Team, 

NMFS, January 20, 2010. Available at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-MarineSpecies/eulachon.cfm. Web site accessed March 16, 2010. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement to 

Inform Columbia River Basin Hatchery Operations and the Funding of Mitchell Act 

Hatchery Programs. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011a. Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan 

Module for Salmon and Steelhead. NMFS Northwest Region. Portland, OR. Prepared for 

NMFS by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (contractor) and PC Trask & 

Associates, Inc. (subcontractor). January 2011.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. ESA Recovery Plan for the White Salmon River 

Watershed. June 2013.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. 5-Year Review: Summary & Evaluation of 

Lower Columbia River Chinook, Columbia River Chum, Lower Columbia River Coho, 

Lower Columbia River Steelhead. Northwest Region. Portland, OR. Available at 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/5-yr-rpts.cfm.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011c. Effects of Hatchery Programs on Salmon and 

Steelhead Populations: Reference Document for NMFS ESA Hatchery Consultations. 

March 7, 2011. NMFS Northwest Regional Office, Salmon Management Division. 

Portland, Oregon, 50p.

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in Pacific Northwest. 

National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 452 pp. 

National Research Council. 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water 

Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). 

Wildlife Habitat Council. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet No. 36. January 

2006. 

Noren, D.P. 2010. Estimated Field Metabolic Rates and Prey Requirements of Resident 

Killer Whales. Marine Mammal Science. 27:60–77.

Normandeau Associates Inc., J.R. Skalski, and Mid-Columbia Consulting Inc. 1995. 

Turbine Passage Survival of Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) at 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-16

Lower Granite Dam, Snake River, Washington. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Contract DACW68-95-C-0031, 78 p. (Available from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Walla Walla, WA 99362.)

Normandeau Associates Inc., J.R. Skalski, and Mid-Columbia Consulting Inc. 1996. Draft 

Report on Potential Effects of Spillway Flow Deflectors on Fish Condition and Survival 

at the Bonneville Dam, Columbia River. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Contract DACW57-95-C-0086, 51 p. plus App. (Available from U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Portland, OR 97208.)

Normandeau Associates Inc., J.R. Skalski, and Mid-Columbia Consulting Inc. 1999. 

Relative Passage Survival and Injury Mechanisms for Chinook Salmon Smolts Within 

the Turbine Environment at McNary Dam, Columbia River. Draft Report to U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW68-96-D-003. (Available from U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Walla Walla, WA 99362.)

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NFWSC). 2010. Lower Columbia River Tule 

Chinook Salmon Life-Cycle Modeling. Draft report. National Marine Fisheries Service. 

February 10.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2001. Dams and Hydropower. Personal 

communication (e-mail). Portland, OR.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004a. Mainstem Lower Columbia River 

and Columbia River Estuary Subbasin Plan. In Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program. Portland, OR. Available at 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/Default.htm.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004b. White Salmon Subbasin Plan. In 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, OR. May 28, 2004. Available 

at http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/Default.htm.

Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annals of the 

Association of American Geographers. 77(1): 118-125.

Oregon Climate Change Research Institute. 2010. Oregon Climate Assessment Report. 

K.D. Dello and P.W. Mote (eds). College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR. Available at: www.occri.net/OCAR.

Oregon Department of Energy. 2009. Report to the Legislature: Oregon Global Warming 

Commission. January 2009. Available at: 

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM/GWC/docs/09CommissionReport.pdf.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northwest Region. 2011. Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery Plan for 

Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. August 5, 2011.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. 2005 Oregon Native Fish Status Report. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-17

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Lower Columbia River Conservation and 

Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon and Steelhead. August 6, 2010. 

Available at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/lower_columbia_plan.asp.

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 2010. The Oregon Climate 

Change Adaptation Framework. December 2010. Available at: 

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/ClimateChange/Framework_Final.pdf?ga=t

Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee. 1989. Model Comprehensive Fish 

Health Protection Program. Olympia, Washington. 33 pp.

Portland General Electric Company. 2006. Settlement Agreement Concerning the 

Relicensing of the Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project – FERC Project No. 2195. 

Exhibit D, Fish Passage and Protection Plan. March 2006.

Quinn, T.P. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. University of 

Washington Press. 363 pp.

Recovery Implementation Science Team (RIST). 2009. Hatchery Reform Science: A 

Review of Some Applications of Science to Hatchery Reform Issues. April 9, 2009.

Reischel, T.S., and T.C. Bjornn. 2003. Influence of Fishway Placement on Fallback of 

Adult Salmon at the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 23:1215-1224.

Reisenbichler, R.R., and J.D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic Differences in Growth and Survival 

of Juvenile Hatchery and Wild Steelhead Trout, Salmo gairdneri. Journal of the Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada 34: 123-128.

Roby, D.D., D.P. Craig, K. Collis, and S.L. Adamany. 1998. Avian Predation on Juvenile 

Salmonids in the Lower Columbia River, 1997 Annual Report. Bonneville Power 

Administration Contract 97BI33475 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract 

E96970049. 70 pp.

Roegner, G.C., D.L. Bottom, A. Baptista, S. Hinton, C.A. Simenstad, E. Casillas, and K. 

Jones. 2004. Estuarine Habitat and Juvenile Salmon: Current and Historical Linkages in 

the Lower Columbia River and Estuary, 2003. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.

Roelofs, T.D. 1983. Current Status of California Summer Steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) 

Stocks and Habitat, and Recommendations for Their Management. Submitted to USDA 

Forest Service, Region 5, 77 p. (Available from Protected Resources Division, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 E Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97232.)

Roni, P., G.R. Pess, T.J. Beechie, and S.A. Morley. 2011. Estimating Salmon and Steelhead 

Response to Watershed Restoration: How Much Restoration Is Enough? North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 30:1469 1484.

Ruggiero, P., C. Brown, P. Komar, J. Allan, D. Reusser, and H. Lee. 2010. Impacts of 

Climate Change on Oregon’s Coasts and Estuaries. P. 209-265 In: K.D. Dello and P.W. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-18

Mote (eds). Oregon Climate Assessment Report. Oregon Climate Change Research 

Institute, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. Available at: www.occri.net/OCAR. 

Ryan, B.A., S.G. Smith, J.M. Butzerin, and J.W. Ferguson. 2003. Relative Vulnerability to 

Avian Predation of Juvenile Salmonids Tagged with Passive Integrated Transponders in 

the Columbia River Estuary, 1998-2000. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

132:275-288.

Ryman, N., and L. Laikre. 1991. Effects of Supportive Breeding on the Genetically 

Effective Population Size. Conservation Biology 5:325-329.

Salathe, E.P, L. R. Leung, Y. Qian, and Y. Zhang. 2009. Regional Climate Model 

Projections for the State of Washington. Pages 45–67 in M. M. Elsner, J. Littell, and L.W. 

Binder, editors. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Center for 

Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, 

University of Washington, Seattle.

Salathe, E.P. 2005. Downscaling Simulations of Future Global Climate with Application 

to Hydrologic Modelling. International Journal of Climatology 25(4):419-436.

Sandercock, F. K. 1991. Life History of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pacific 

Salmon Life Histories. C. Groot and L. Margolis. University of British Columbia Press, 

Vancouver. 395-446.

Shapovalov, L. and A.C. Taft. 1954. The Life Histories of the Steelhead Rainbow Trout 

(Salmo gairdneri) and Silver Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with Special Reference to 

Waddell Creek, California, and Recommendations Regarding Their Management. Calif. 

Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. No. 98. 373 pp.

Sherwood, C.R., D.A. Jay, R.B. Harvey, P. Hamilton, and C.A. Simenstad. 1990. 

Historical Changes in the Columbia River Estuary. Pages 299-352 in M.V. Angel and R.L. 

Smith eds., Columbia River: Estuarine System. Progress in Oceanography 25(1-4).

Snover, A.K., A.F. Hamlet, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2003. Climate Change Scenarios for 

Water Planning Studies: Pilot Applications in the Pacific Northwest. Bulletin of the 

American Meteorological Society 84(11):1513-1518. 

Stansell, R.J., K.M. Gibbons, W.T. Nagy, and B.K. van der Leeuw. 2011. 2011 Field 

Report: Evaluation of Pinniped Predation on Adult Salmonids and Other Fish in the 

Bonneville Dam Tailrace, 2011. U.S. Army Corp. of Eng., Portland Dist., Fish. Field. Unit, 

Bonneville Lock and Dam, Cascade Locks, OR 97014. 29 pp.

State of Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. 2004. Forecasts of Oregon’s County 

Populations and Components of Change, 2000—2040. 

Steel, E. A., and M. B. Sheer. 2003. Appendix I: Broad-Scale Habitat Analyses to Estimate 

Fish Densities for Viability Criteria. In Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-19

Team, Interim Report on Viability Criteria for Willamette and Lower Columbia Basin 

Pacific Salmonids. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, Seattle, WA.

Steward, C.R., and T.C. Bjornn. 1990. Supplementation of Salmon and Steelhead Stocks 

with Hatchery Fish: A Synthesis of Published Literature. Tech. Report 90-1. Bonneville 

Power Administration.

Steward, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2004. Changes in Snowmelt Runoff 

Timing in Western North America Under a “Business as Usual” Climate Change 

Scenario. Climatic Change 62:217-232.

Stock, C. A., M. Alexander, N. Bond, K. Brander, W. Cheung, E. Curchitser, T. Delworth, 

J. Dunne, S. Griffies, M. Haltuchg, J. Hare, A. Hollowed, P. Lehodey, S. Levin, J. Link, K. 

Rose,R. Rykaczewski, J. Sarmienton, R. Stouffer, F. Schwingo, G. Vecchi, and F. Werner. 

2011. On the Use of IPCC-class Models to Assess the Impact of Climate on Living Marine 

Resources. Progress in Oceanography 88: 1-27.

Stout, H.A., P.W. Lawson, D. Bottom, T. Cooney, M. Ford, C. Jordan, R. Kope, L. Kruzic, 

G.Pess, G. Reeves, M. Scheuerell, T. Wainwright, R. Waples, L. Weitkamp, J. Williams 

and T. Williams. 2011. Scientific Conclusions of the Status Review for Oregon Coast 

Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Draft revised report of the Oregon Coast Coho 

Salmon Biological Review Team. NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC, Seattle, WA. Available at: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/AlseaResponse/upload/OCC-review-2011.pdf. 

Trombulak, S.C., K.S. Omland, J.A. Robinson, J.J. Lusk, T.L. Fleischner, G. Brown, and 

M. Domroese. 2004. Principles of Conservation Biology: Recommended Guidelines for 

Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society for Conservation 

Biology. Conservation Biology 18:1180-1190.

Turner, Richard. 2011. Personal communication with Richard Turner, Fisheries Biologist, 

Salmon Recovery Division, NOAA Fisheries. Portland, Oregon.

Tymchuk, W. E., C. Biagi, R. E. Withler, and R. H. Devlin. 2006. Growth and Behavioral 

Consequences of Introgression of a Domesticated Aquaculture Genotype into a Native 

Strain of Coho Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:442-455.

U.S .Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and New York State Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources 

(Co-lead agencies). 2012. National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation 

Strategy, Public Review Draft. January 2012. Available at: 

http://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/pdf/public_review_draft.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Status Report—Pinniped Predation and Hazing at 

Bonneville Dam in 2007. Fisheries Field Unit CENWPOP-SRF Bonneville Lock and Dam, 

Cascade Locks, Oregon.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011a. 2011 Field Report: Evaluation of Pinniped 

Predation on Adult Salmonids and Other Fish in the Bonneville Dam Tailrace. Portland 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-20

District, Fisheries Field Unit. Prepared by Robert J. Stansell, Karrie M. Gibbons, William 

T. Nagy, and Bjorn K. van der Leeuw.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011b. Survival and Passage of Juvenile Chinook Salmon 

and Steelhead Passing Through Bonneville Dam, 2010. Draft Final Report. Prepared for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, by Pacific Northwest National Lab, 

under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract DEAC05-76RLO1830. PNNL 20835. October 2011.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior. 1994. Record of 

Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning 

Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Fish Health Policy and Implementation, 713 FW., 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FWM). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, 

D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Bull Trout Facts. Public Affairs Office, USFWS, 

Portland Oregon. May 1998. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Fish Health Policy and Implementation, 713 FW 1-5, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FWM) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, 

D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Caspian Tern Management to Reduce Predation of 

Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. Final environmental impact 

statements. Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Revised Hawaiian Forest Birds Recovery Plan. 

Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/recoveryplans.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Bull trout background information (biology, species 

description, proposed critical habitat description, species profile). Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/. Website accessed March 31, 2010. 

Volkman, J.M. 1997. A River in Common: The Columbia River, the Salmon Ecosystem, 

and Water Policy. A report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. 

Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service. 

Waples, R.S., R.P. Jones, Jr., B.R. Beckman, and G.A. Swan. 1991. Status Review for 

Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon. United States Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Ward, B.R., and P.A. Slaney. 1988. Life History and Smolt-to-Adult Survival of Keogh 

River Steelhead Trout (Salmo gairdneri). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 45:1110-1122.
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-21

Washington Department of Ecology. 2011. Interim Recommendations from Topic 

Advisory Group 3: Species, Habitats and Ecosystems, February, 2011. Washington State 

Integrated Climate Change Response Strategy. Available at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2011TAGdocs/E2011_interimreport.pdf.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. 2002. Status Report: Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1938-2000. July 

2002. 324 pg.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Western Washington Treaty Indian 

Tribes, and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 1995. Dungeness River Chinook 

Salmon Rebuilding Project Progress Report 1992-93. C.J. Smith and P. Wampler, Editors. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian 

Tribes. 1998. Salmonid Disease Control Policy of the Fisheries Co-Managers of 

Washington State. Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Fish Health Manual. Fish Health 

Division, Hatcheries Program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington.

Washington State Department of Transportation. Population Growth in Relation to the 

State’s Counties. Website accessed November 29, 2011. 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/wtp/datalibrary/population/PopGrowthCount

y.htm.

Washington State Natural Resources Cabinet. 1999. Statewide Strategy to Recover 

Salmon: Extinction Is Not an Option. Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. 

Olympia, WA.

Welander, A.D. 1940. Notes on the Dissemination of Shad, Alosa sapidissima (Wilson), 

along the Pacific Coast of North America. Copeia 1940(4): 221-223.

Welch, K.F., M. Yinger and K. Callahan. 2002. WRIA 29: Hydrology and Geology 

Assessment. Review draft. Prepared for Envirovision Corp. and WRIA 29 Planning Unit.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2003. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Organization, National Climatic Data Center. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html.

Whitney, R.R., L. Calvin, M. Erho, and C. Coutant. 1997. Downstream Passage for 

Salmon at Hydroelectric Projects in the Columbia River Basin: Development, 

Installation, and Evaluation. U.S. Department of Energy, Northwest Power Planning 

Council, Portland, Oregon. Report 97-15. 101 pp. 

Wiles, G.J. 2004. Washington State Status Report for the Killer Whale. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 2004.

Wiley, M.W. 2004. Analysis Techniques to Incorporate Climate Change Information into 

Seattle’s Long Range Water Supply Planning. Master’s Thesis, Department of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering, University of Washington; Seattle, WA. 
Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead ESA Recovery Plan — June 2013

13-22

Wipfli, M.S., J.P. Hudson, D.T. Chaloner, and J.P. Caouette. 1999. Influence of Salmon 

Spawner Densities on Stream Productivity in Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1600-1611.

Withler, R.E. 1988. Genetic Consequences of Fertilizing Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) Eggs with Pooled Milt. Aquaculture 68: 15-25.

Zamon, J.E., T.J. Guy, K. Balcomb, and D. Ellifrit. 2007. Winter Observations of Southern 

Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) near the Columbia River Plume during the 2005 

Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) Spawning Migration. Northwestern 

Naturalist. Volume 88, pages 193 to 198.